BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NUH (MEWAT).
Complaint No. 08 of 2016
Date of Instt:-13.5.2016
Date of Decision:-30.5.2017
Noor Mohammad son of Munshi Khan, resident of village Chahlka, Tehsil Tauru, District Mewat.
.......Complainant
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Plot No. 60 Okhla Industrial area Phase-3 New Delhi, through its Branch Manager.
......Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Before:- Sh. Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
Smt. Urmil Beniwal, Member
Smt. Keeran Bala, Member
Present:- Sh. Kamaluddin, Adv. for the complainant.
Sh. Sandeep Mittal, Adv. for the opposite party.
Order:- ( R.S. Dahiya, President)
The facts of the complaint in brief are that as under:-
Firstly, the complainant filed the petition before Permanent Lok Adalat, Nuh, the said Court disposed of the said petition with the direction to file the suit in Civil Court.
Secondly, the complainant file the civil suit for Mandatory injunction against the opposite party in the Civil court, the Civil Court dismissed the suit with the direction to file the petition before the Consumer Forum.
1. The complainant is a registered owner of Truck LPT-2515 bearing registration No. HR-55H-8296, which was insured with the opposite party. The aforesaid vehicle was stolen in the night of 21/22.11.2011 by unknown person from the Pahwa Petrol Pump Tauru. The first information report was lodged with the police station Tauru under section 379 IPC vide FIR No. 451 dated 3012.2011. The complainant informed the opposite party about the theft of said vehicle on the same day. Thereafter, the investigator of the opposite party namely Sh. Snuil Jain came on the spot and investigated the case vide letter dated 10.1.2012. The complainant submitted all the required documents to the opposite party for getting the claim amount, but the opposite party refused to release the insurance amount to the complainant. Hence, it is prayed that the opposite party be directed to make the payment of Rs. 19,00,000/- (Ninteen Lakh rupees only) as insured amount of the truck to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite party put in appearance and filed written statement by agitating that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, the complainant has not come with clean hands and concealed the true material facts and the complaint is false and frivolous. It is contended that the complainant informed the opposite party after three days of incident, which is violation of terms and condition No. 1 of insurance policy. It is further contended that the incident was occurred in the night of 20.11.2011, but the complainant lodged the FIR after delay of 39 days in Police Station Tauru vide FIR No. 451 dated 30.12.2011. It is wrong that the complainant informed the opposite party regarding the theft of said vehicle on the same day. Dismissal of complaint is prayed for.
3. In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. CW1/A, certified copies of application dated 17.3.2012 Ex. C1 and Ex. C19, certified copy of FIR Ex. C2, certified copy of challan Ex. C3, certified copy of statement of Noor Mohd. Ex. C4, certified copy of statement of Rehmant Ex. C5, certified copy of statement of EHC Rajender Singh Ex. C6, certified copy of application dated 22.11.2011 Ex. C7, certified copy of RC Ex. C-8, certified copy of policy schedule Ex. C9 and Ex. C24, certified copy of DL Ex. C10, certified copy of Form 47 Ex. C11, certified copy of form part B Ex. C12, certified copies of letter dated 29.3.2012 Ex. C13 and Ex. C23, certified copy of notice Ex. C14, certified copy of letter dated 16.1.2012 Ex. C15, certified copy of report of investigator Ex. C16, certified copy of tax invoice Ex. C17, certified copy of key Ex. C18, certified copy of letter dated. 11.1.2012 Ex. C20, certified copies of report of investigator Ex. C21 and Ex. C22, certified copy of letter of subrogation Ex. C25, certified copy of Tehrir Ex. C26, certified copy of statement of Pritam Singh MHC Ex. C27, certified copy of order dated 22.12.2015 Ex. C28 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has produced the photocopy of certified order dated 22.12.2015 Annexure R1, copy of letter dated 11.1.2012 Annexure R2, copy of report of investigator Annexure R3, copy of application dated 16.1.2012 Annexure R4, and copy of letter dated 29.3.2012 Annexure R5 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the case very carefully. The only point of controversy between the parties is the objections taken by the opposite party:-
(a) Not fulfilling the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by
informing the opposite party after a delay of 3 days.
(b) Delay of 39 days in registering the F.I.R.
Regarding the objection (a) we refer ‘Insurance Companies are not acting fairly in such matters after charging huge premium. Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other. The conditions of the insurance agreements are so minutely printed that person gets hardly any time to go through such conditions to make it legally binding in any appropriate manner’. These are the observations made by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh, Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in CWP No. 9716 of 2011 in case titled National Insurance Company Limited Gurgaon Versus Ravi Dutt Sharma & Another. The complaint in hand and the objection therein replied in negative by following the aforesaid citation of the Hon’ble High Court.
As regards objection (b) a delay of registration of F.I.R. by 39 days the evidence on record in this regard that the application for registration F.I.R. of theft Ex. PW1/B was given to the Local Police on 22.11.2011 and a receipt is also marked on this exhibit by the Local Police. This fact is also supported by PW4 EHC Rajender Singh in his statement. So no contrary view can be taken by this Forum. If, Local Police delayed the registration of F.I.R. in this regard and no fault or negligence can be fastened on the complainant for dereliction of duty by the local police. It is pertinent to mention here that factum of the theft was notified to the opposite party within 3 days. So, no benefit can be gained by the opposite party for this technical objection which is untenable in our opinion. The point of delay in registration of F.I.R. has been adjudicated in many cases by our Hon’ble High Court in support of our opinion; we refer Hon’ble RAMESHWAR SINGH MALI, JJUSTICE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGHT COURT in civil writ petition no. 21383 of 2016 in case titled Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited Versus Ravi Kumar and another.
We will be failing in our duty if we does not pointed out that the exact sum was not claimed by the complainant. However, we base our award on the basis of insurance policy Ex. PW1/G. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the opposite party is ordered to pay Rs. 1,080,000/- as IDV alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order till realization. The opposite party are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses and compensation to the complainant. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced on 30.5.2017
President
Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum/Nuh (Mewat)
30.5.2017
