Punjab

StateCommission

FA/973/2013

New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Randheer Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Vishwajit Bedi

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB      DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

  First Appeal No.973 of 2013                                                    

Date of institution  :    10.09.2013

Date of decision     :    27.02.2015

 

1.      The New India Assurance Company Limited, Park Road,         Mansa, through its Branch Manager.

2.      The New India Assurance Company Limited, Randhir College          Road, Sangrur, through its Divisional Manager.

3.      The New India Assurance Company Limited, New India           Insurance Building-87, Mahatama Gandhi Road, Fort, through    its Managing Director.

…….Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

Randheer Singh S/o Surjit Singh, R/o Village Sarron, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                          …Respondent/Complainant 

First Appeal against the order dated 05.07.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:- 

 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

                        Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.

                       

Present:-

 

          For the appellants         : None.

          For the respondent        : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate.

 

 

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

 

                    The appellants/opposite parties have preferred this appeal against the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by Randheer Singh, respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay him a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the realization of that amount and to pay Rs.10,000/-, as the consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

1. As per the allegations, made in the complaint, the complainant got his car make Bolero SLX, bearing registration No.PB-13-R-5673 insured with opposite party No.1, vide policy No.360602/31/09/0100000007, which was valid from 02.04.2009 to 01.04.2010. He paid a premium of Rs.15,800/- and the car was insured for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. During the said period, the car was stolen by some unknown persons from Nankiana Chowk, Sangrur. He tried to find out the same and lodged FIR No.102 dated 19.04.2009 in Police Station, Sangrur. He informed opposite party No.1 regarding the theft of the car immediately, without any delay on his part. It demanded various documents, which were supplied to it from time to time. The opposite parties did not pay the claim amount, nor informed him about the status of his claim and, accordingly, he sent legal notice dated 13.09.2012, through his Advocate Sh. Kirandeep Singh. Vide that notice, he also demanded copies of various documents regarding his claim, by virtue of the RTI Act. The opposite parties failed to give details of those documents. He came to know from the reply dated 25.09.2012, of the opposite parties, to the legal notice that his claim had been repudiated on 12.06.2012. The same was repudiated on false and frivolous grounds. He approached the opposite parties and requested them to pay the claim amount, as he had not violated any terms and conditions of the policy, nor the copy of those terms and conditions was supplied to him.However, they flatly refused to do so. He prayed for the issuance of directions to the opposite parties to pay the insured amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, along with interest and Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation and litigation expenses; on account of the mental torture, agony, inconvenience and humiliation suffered by him.

2. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply before the District Forum. In the written reply, they admitted that on the request of the complainant, the car in dispute was insured with them for the period 02.04.2009 to 01.04.2010 and that intimation regarding the theft thereof was given to them and that the claim made by the complainant under the policy was repudiated. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that the car was insured for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy; which were supplied to the complainant along with the policy. After receiving the intimation of theft on 02.07.2009, they appointed D.S. Chadha, Investigator for investigating the matter and to submit his report. The report was submitted by him on 22.11.2009 and after examining whole of the record, the claim made by the complainant was repudiated and he was informed about the same, vide letter dated 12.06.2012. The claim was repudiated on account of the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, as the complainant failed to inform them about the theft of the car immediately and that intimation was given after 77 days of the alleged theft and even the police was informed about the theft on 19.04.2009, i.e. after two days of that alleged theft. The complainant even did not disclose that a criminal case was pending at the time of obtaining the insurance, in which the police authorities took the car into possession in FIR No.58 dated 29.06.2008 and that he had taken the car on spurdari, after furnishing spurdarinama in the sum of Rs.8,00,000/-; though that information was very material to be disclosed for obtaining the insurance policy. As the claim was rightly repudiated, on the ground of the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, so it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on their part. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

3.           Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant, as at the time of arguments no one appeared for the appellants/opposite parties. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.

5. In the grounds of appeal, the opposite parties reiterated the averments, as made in the written reply and according to them, the District Forum failed to consider the fact that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, as written intimation to them was not given immediately and was given after 77 days of the alleged theft and that the complainant did not disclose that a criminal case was already pending at the time of getting insurance and the car, in question, was involved in the case and custody thereof was taken by the police, which was later on released in his favour on spurdari.

6. It was submitted before us by the learned counsel for the complainant that correct findings were recorded by the District Forum, on the basis of the evidence produced before it, while coming to the conclusion that there was no breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. It correctly recorded that the intimation of theft was given to the police immediately and that the intimation was given to the opposite parties within a reasonable time. Even if there was some delay in giving that intimation, the same could not have been made a ground for repudiation of the claim made under the policy, in view of the Circular No.IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated 20.09.2011 issued by the I.R.D.A. There is no ground for upsetting the well reasoned findings, so recorded by the District Forum.

7. Neither the complainant, nor the opposite parties proved on record the letter dated 12.06.2012, vide which the claim made by the complainant under the policy was repudiated. However, it can be made out from the averments of the parties that the claim was repudiated, on the ground that the intimation to the police about the theft of the car was not given immediately and that there was also delay on the part of the complainant in giving the written intimation to the opposite parties. The policy, so obtained by the complainant, was proved on the record as Ex.C-9/Ex.R-1. It was a Private Car Policy & Package. The Standard Form for Private Car Package Policy, containing the terms and conditions, was proved as Ex.R-2. Condition No.1 thereof is reproduced below:-

    

   “1.     Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.”

    

8. The first question to be determined is, whether the notice was given by the complainant to the police regarding the theft of the car immediately? In support of the allegations made in the complaint, he proved on record his affidavit Ex.C-1. In that affidavit, he deposed that after the theft of the car, he tried to find out the same and FIR No.102 dated 19.04.2009 was lodged in Police Station, Sangrur. It is not his case, either in the complaint or in the deposition made by him by way of the said affidavit, that before lodging the FIR, he had given intimation to the police about the theft of the car and that fact also becomes clear from the contents of the FIR, which was proved on the record as Ex.C-2. He got narrated therein that on 17.04.2009, he had gone to Sangrur City from his village to attend the Akali Dal Rally and had parked the car near Nankiana Crossing, after locking the same and that when he came back at about 4.00 P.M., he found that the same was missing from that place and that he kept on searching for that car, but failed and thereafter, lodged the FIR. This FIR was lodged on 19.04.2009 at 12.30 A.M.It becomes very much clear from the contents of the FIR and the other evidence produced by the complainant that this information, by way of recording of the FIR, was given to the police after 32 hours and 30 minutes. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, rendered in First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2009 (New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane), it cannot be said that this intimation to the police was given immediately. After taking into consideration the meaning of “immediately” given in different dictionaries and the context, in which the same was used in the insurance policy, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that “immediately” has to be construed within a reasonable time, having due regard to the nature of the circumstances of the case and that in case of theft, where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon him to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours. While construing reasonable period as 24 hours, it was observed that otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Keeping in view that the FIR was lodged by the complainant after that period of 24 hours, we are of the considered opinion that the claim made by him under the policy was validly repudiated by the opposite parties-Insurance Company.

9. In the complaint, the complainant alleged that he immediately informed opposite party No.1 regarding the theft of the car, without any delay on his part. Similar deposition was made by him in his affidavit Ex.C-1. He has not alleged that this information was given in writing. As per the above said reproduced condition, he was required to give a notice in writing to the opposite parties immediately upon the loss of the vehicle. From the evidence produced on the record, the only conclusion can be drawn that the written notice of theft was given by him to the opposite parties on 02.07.2009. He had written a letter to opposite party No.1, which was proved by the opposite parties as Ex.R-3. He informed that opposite party-Insurance Company about the theft of the car on 02.07.2009, as is clear from the endorsement made thereon by opposite party No.1. He did not mention in that letter, the date on which, the same was written by him. It is also very much apparent from the contents thereof that this letter was sent much after 19.04.2009; as it is mentioned therein that the FIR regarding the theft was lodged with the police on 19.04.2009.

10. No doubt, it has been mentioned in the circular, so relied upon by the counsel for the complainant, that the insurance claims should not be disallowed, on the ground of delay in giving intimation of the loss or damage to the vehicle, but that circular is applicable only, when the insurance company intends to repudiate the claim only on that ground. Moreover, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Trilochan Jane’s case (supra) that the insurer is required to be informed about the theft of the vehicle within a day or two, so that it can verify, as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. In that case, there was delay of nine days in reporting the theft to the insurer and it was held to be violation of the condition of the policy, on the ground that the same deprived the insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle. So, in the present case, the inordinate delay in giving written intimation of theft to the opposite parties was also a valid ground for repudiation. In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the District Forum, to the contrary, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.

12.           The appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They deposited another sum of Rs.1,84,633/- on 30.09.2013, as per the directions of this Commission. Both these sums along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellants

13. The arguments in this case were heard on 25.02.2015 and the order was reserved.Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

14.           The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

     

     

     

                                                            (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                           PRESIDENT  

                                                             

     

     

                                                            (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                            MEMBER

                                                             

    February 27, 2015

    (Gurmeet S)