Haryana

Kurukshetra

133/2018

Ganga Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance gen Ins - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Thakur

01 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.133 of 2018.

Date of instt.:15.06.2018. 

                                                                           Date of Decision:01.10.2019.

 

Ganga Ram son of Shri Churia Ram, resident of VPO Jajanpur, District Kaithal. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Branch office SCO 36-37, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, New Leela Bhawan Patiala through its Branch Manager.
2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, registered office at H-Block 1^st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, New Mumbai through its Managing Director.
3. Satguru Insurance Services and Pollution Check Centre Opposite DAV College Pehowa, District Kurukshetra through its Manager/ Proprietor. 

       

        ..………Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.                                               

Present:     Shri Shekhar Thakur, Advocate for complainant.            

 Shri V.K. Garg, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2.

 Opposite party No.3 ex-parte.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Ganga Ram against Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and others, the opposite parties.

2.             Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is a registered owner of Hero Splendor Pro bearing registration No.HR08N-9782 and the same was insured by OP No.1 through OP No.3 vide insurance policy no.2010262312009998 for the period 7.12.2016 to 6.12.2017. On 01.12.2017, the complainant’s friend Sheeshpal son of Surjan Singh took his motorcycle for going to Kurukshetra and parked the same near Krishana Mahal Hotel at Brahamsarover, Kurukshetra and after visiting Gita Jayanti Festival, he found that aforesaid motorcycle has been stolen by someone. His friend made many efforts to trace the motorcycle but to no effect. It is further averred that consequently, Sheeshpal got registered FIR No.488 on the very next day i.e. on 02.12.2017 and the police also submitted untraceable report to concerned Illaqa Magistrate, Kurukshetra. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant approached the OP No.3 on a day after registration of FIR i.e. 4.12.2017 and intimated the whole incident of theft and asked him to do the needful regarding lodging of the claim with OPs no.1 and 2, but despite due acknowledge of the theft incident, OP No.3 deferred the matter on one pretext or the another and nothing needful was done on part of op no.3. Then he got issued a legal notice dated 12.02.2018 upon OP No.2 for submission of relevant claim paper to the complainant within 15 days of receipt of legal notice, but more than three months have been elapsed, but OP No.2 failed to submit the relevant claim paper. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus-standi and jurisdiction. It is stated that that no intimation of theft has been given to the answering OPs and no claim has been lodged by the complainant till today. No copy of alleged written intimation to the insurer through op no.3 has been filed. The op no.3 was not authorized to receive an intimation of theft of vehicle. The said intimation ought to have been directly to the insurer in order to enable it to investigate the claim by appointment of a surveyor etc. By not giving intimation of theft to the insurer, the complainant deprived the insurance company of its valuable right to investigate the claim and to make efforts to trace the stolen vehicle. Further, the complainant has also not supplied claim papers for settlement of theft claim which ought to be received by insurance company after claim intimation. FIR has also been lodged on the next day of the alleged incident inspite of the fact that at the time of Gita Jayanti Festival, police officials remained present on duty. It is clearly proved that motor cycle was not parked in authorized parking and prayed for dismissal of complaint with special costs.

4.             Upon notice, the OP No.3 has failed to come present and as such, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.07.2018.

5.             The learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to EX.C7. On the other hand, learned counsel for Ops No. 1 & 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7 and closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He argued that the complainant got insured his motorcycle with the OPs and the said motorcycle was stolen on 01.12.2017. He further argued that the complainant duly informed about the said incident to the OP No.3, who assured that he will pass the intimation to the insurance company. But the OP No.3 deferred the matter on one pretext or the other and nothing needful was done on part of OP No.3 and prayed for acceptance of the complaint. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the cases, titled as United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rekha Devi, First Appeal No.178/2018, d.o.d. 15.04.2019 (SC); Shriram General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Akhilesh Kumar, First Appeal No.108/2015, d.o.d. 29.03.2019 (SC) and Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal of 2008, d.o.d. 30.07.2008 (SC).  

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 has reiterated all the averments made in the reply. He argued that no intimation of theft has been given to the OPs and no claim has been lodged by the complainant till today. He further argued that FIR has also been lodged on the next day of the alleged incident. He further argued that the complainant has also not supplied claim papers for settlement of theft claim. There is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and the present complaint may be dismissed against them with costs. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has placed reliance on the case, titled as Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Awadh Singh, Revision Petition No.3957 of 2017, d.o.d. 16.04.2018.

9.             Admittedly, the complainant got insured his motorcycle in question with the OPs No.1 & 2 vide policy Ex.C-3. The said vehicle was stolen on 01.12.2017 and in this regard, FIR bearing No.0488 dated 02.12.2017 was lodged in PS Kurukshetra University (Ex.C-2). The grievance of the complainant is that he duly informed the OP No.3 i.e. agent of OPs No.1 & 2 about the theft of the motorcycle, who assured that he will pass on the information to the insurance company, but despite that, claim amount was not paid to him till today. On the other hand, it is contended by the OPs that no intimation of theft has been given to the OPs by the complainant till today. The complainant has also not supplied claim papers for settlement of theft claim. To support his contention, the complainant produced the Policy as Ex.C-3, wherein, the stamp of OP No.3 is duly affixed. However, if the complainant had duly intimated about the theft in question to the OP No.3 i.e. agent of the OPs No.1 & 2, then it is the duty of the OP No.3 to pass this information to the OPs No.1 & 2. If he did not do so, then it is not the fault of the complainant. Furthermore, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 12.02.2018 to OPs regarding the claim of his motorcycle through registered post, as is evident from legal notice Ex.6 and receipt Ex.C5, which might have received to them. Meaning thereby, the OPs got intimation about theft in question in February 2018, but despite getting information of theft, the insurance company furnished no enquiry or investigation report, reason best known to them. So, contention of OPs that complainant had not intimated them about the incident in question in writing, has no force. In this regard, we derive support from the judgments produced by the complainant titled United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rekha Devi (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble State Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradhun has held that the complainant deposed that the incident was duly narrated to Sh. Semwal, the agent of the insurance company, who assured her to pass on the information to the company office on the same day. The said factum has not been specifically denied by the insurance company. The record also spells out that the matter was duly investigated by the police and resultantly, Final report was dismissed. It is further held that the delay in intimating the information to the insurance company, has been properly explained by the complainant and the complainant had taken all reasonable steps with regard to the vehicle stolen. FIR was lodged promptly. It also transpires from the police record that due efforts were made to trace the vehicle and ultimately, final report was submitted. The circumstances raise no suspicion about the occurrence. This is the peculiar case in which the intimation of theft was given promptly to the Agent of the insurance company, who assured the complainant to pass the information to the insurance company immediately. The principal is bound with the acts of its Agents. The evaluation of the matter reveals that the complainant’s case is based on truth and Truth is the ‘spirit-soul’ of justice. In the case of Shriram General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Akhilesh Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble State Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradhun has held that the factum of lodging the prompt FIR is also not in dispute. As per the version narrated in the complaint, the agent of the company was intimated promptly about the theft. Thereafter, on his persuasion other authorities of the company were also intimated on phone. Thereafter, written information was sent by way of UPC. All these facts have not been specifically denied by the insurance company. Thus, the evidence furnished by the complainant stands uncontroverted on the aforesaid issue. It is also worth to consider that despite getting information of theft, the insurance company furnished no enquiry or investigation report. The truth appears to be that the claim is genuine and adopting realistic view shall serve the case of justice, in our view. The settled position of law is that in case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane and so the insurance company is liable to compensate the owner of the vehicle. The case laws cited by learned counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 are not disputed, but same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

10.            Keeping in view the case law laid down by the superior Fora in the aforesaid cases and the facts & circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs No.1 and 2 by not paying the claim amount to the complainant, have committed deficiency in services. Since the motorcycle in question was insured for Rs.23,000/-, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the said amount on completion of all the requisite formalities. The OPs No.1 and 2 has pleaded that the untrace report has not been furnished by the complainant.

11.            Taking all these facts into consideration, we dispose of the present complaint and direct the complainant to submit the untrace report duly accepted by the competent Court of law alongwith subrogation letter, with the OPs and also complete all the requisite formalities to get the claim amount. The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.23,000/- alongwith Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation charges, to the complainant within 30 days, after doing the needful by the complainant, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:01.10.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.