Haryana

StateCommission

A/16/2015

NITIN LAMBA - Complainant(s)

Versus

REIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ MEHTA

07 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      16 of 2015

Date of Institution:    07.01.2015

Date of Decision :     17.12.2015

 

Nitin Lamba s/o Sh. Balbir Singh Lamba, Resident of House No.540, Sector-16, Hisar.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 88E, 2^nd Floor, Model Town, Hisar through its Branch Manager.

2.      Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.60, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-III, New Delhi through its Claims Manager.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri R.K. Sachdeva, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Nitin Lamba-complainant is in appeal against the order dated 17^th July, 2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby Consumer Complaint No.166 of 2012, seeking compensation with respect to loss of truck, which was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy, was dismissed.

2.      Truck Tata LPT 2515, bearing registration No.HR-39B/0553 owned by the complainant/appellant was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/respondents, for the period from 15.09.2010 to 14.09.2011, vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-5, for Rs.12,00,000/-.

3.      On 30.10.2010 at about 9.00 P.M. the truck was stolen in the area of Barot (U.P.) when it was parked near a Dhaba and its driver namely Jitender Kumar was taking dinner. The driver immediately informed the Police of Police Station Barot but they did not register the F.I.R. Intimation was also given to the Insurance Company on 03.11.2010 but it did not lodge the claim and asked the complainant to produce copy of F.I.R. 

4.      Since the Police did not register the F.I.R., the complainant filed complaint under Section 156 Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bagpat and direction being issued, F.I.R. No.1219 dated 21.12.2010, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (Exhibit R-4), was registered in Police Station, Barot.  The police submitted the untraced report. The complainant filed claim alongwith all the relevant documents with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter Annexure C-2 taking plea that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. and giving intimation to the Insurance Company, the vehicle was being plied without route permit and that the key of the truck was left in the ignition.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

5.      The Opposite Parties/Insurance Company, contested complaint by filing reply wherein they reiterated the facts stated in the repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.      Counsel heard. File perused.

7.      So far as the first contention that there was delay in registration of the F.I.R., the same is not tenable. The complainant has filed an application (Annexure-A) which was given to The Superintendent of Police, Bagpat, copy of complaint (Annexure C-1) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bagpat. It is established on the record that the police had not registered the F.I.R. at first instance and the same was lodged on the direction issued by the Court. Thus, the delay having been explained satisfactorily, the complainant cannot be found to have committed breach of policy.  Besides, Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.629 of 2015, New India Assurance Company Limited versus Gurmeet Kaur & others, decided on August 3^rd, 2015, cited as 2015(3)CLT 476, held as under:-

“(i)     Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) – Insurance claim – Theft of vehicle – Delay in intimation to Insurance company – The clause in the Insurance Policy require to give immediate intimation of accident, but did not require the Insured to give immediate intimation of any loss of the vehicle to the Insurance Company – Held –That it applied only to the occurrence of an accident where a claim is to be lodged with the Insurance Company – The above referred clause does not require the Insured to give immediate intimation to the Insurance Company in case of theft of the vehicle – It is settled law that the terms of an Insurance Policy have to be strictly construed and the Court can neither add to nor subtract anything from the terms and conditions contained in the policy – A theft being a deliberate dishonest act, cannot be said to be an accident – Therefore, the complainant was not required, in this case, to give immediate intimation of the theft to the Insurance Company.”

“(ii)    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 1(1)(g) – Insurance claim – Theft of vehicle – Delay in FIR- Intimation given to police promptly, but FIR registered after 11 days by police – In FIR there is no reference of prompt intimation given by complainant- Held –The complainants cannot be held responsible for the time taken by the police in registering the FIR – He discharged his contractual obligation under the policy for informing the concerned Police Station.”

8.      Even otherwise, in Circular Ref: IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/ CIR/ 216/ 09/ 2011 dated September 20^th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short ‘IRDA’), it is stated by IRDA that there may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim of the claimant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine.  The relevant part of the circular is as under:-

“The Authority has been receiving several complaints that claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission of intimation and documents.

The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.”

9.      The complainant has produced on record the copy of the intimation (Annexure A-1) given to the Insurance Company and copy of postal receipt (Annexure A-2) dated 03.11.2010.  

10.    As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, it is abundantly proved on the record that the insured truck of the complainant was stolen, he immediately informed the police as well as the Insurance Company and the complainant was not at fault on any account. The District Forum fell in error for not appreciating the above said cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant.

11.    Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the truck, that is, Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing complaint till its realisation.  The complainant is directed to execute the letter of subrogation, to hand over the keys of the truck, transfer the Registration Certificate in the name of the Insurance Company and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose.

 

 

Announced 17.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL