Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/599

Deepak Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

C.S.Chopra Adv

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA

 

Consumer Complaint No.599 of 06.10.2015

Date of Decision        :   16.01.2017

 

Deepak Jain, S/o Shri Kimti Lal Jain, #3610, St. No.12, New Madhopuri, Ludhiana-141008.

….. Complainant

Versus 

1.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Surya Towers, 7^th Floor, The Mall, Ludhiana (through its Branch Manager.

2.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.2, Tower F, 1^st Floor, DLF Building, I.T.Park, Chandigarh-161101 (through its Branch Manager).

3.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office :Reliance Centre, 19 Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001, (through authorized Manager/representative)

..…Opposite parties

 

(Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :        Sh.C.S.Chopra, Advocate

For Ops                         :        Sh.G.S.Kalyan, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant got Honda Eterno 150, bearing registration No.PB-10-CP-2251 having engine No.9296733 and Chassis No.98043201, insured with Ops vide policy No.2001532312000546 with validity period from                      19.5.2013 to 18.5.2014 by paying the premium of Rs.667.42P. That insured vehicle stood stolen between the period from 26.1.2014 to 27.1.2014. That vehicle could not be traced, despite best efforts and as such, FIR No.7 at Daresi Police Station was got lodged and thereafter, information was given to Ops. Whatever documents were required for processing of the claim, those were also submitted by the complainant. Thereafter, complainant regularly communicated with Ops lastly until 23.12.2014, but to no effect. Even regular visits of the complainant to the office of Ops did not yield any result, due to which, he suffered mental harassment, pain and agony. Legal notice through registered post on 11.8.2015 even was sent, but the same has not been replied. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to pay the full claim amount and even pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment. Rs.21,200/- claimed as insurance amount, but Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.2500/- as counsel fee. These amounts claimed with interest @24% per annum.

2.                In joint written statement filed by OPs, it is pleaded interalia as if this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, complaint is not maintainable. After receipt of delayed intimation, Ops deputed Mr.Jatinder Dhiman, Investigator for investigating the genuineness of the claim. Said investigator sent several letters to the insured for calling upon him to complete the formalities, but to no effect. It was found that there was delay of two days in lodging the report with police, but intimation to Ops sent only on 7.2.2014. Ops sent letters dated 12.5.2014, 2.6.2014, 23.6.2014, 17.10.2014 and 10.11.2014 for calling upon the complainant to supply the documents. Repudiation letter was sent on 8.12.2014 intimating the complainant that despite sending notices in writing repeatedly, requisite information not supplied by the complainant. As information of loss/theft was not submitted at earliest and as such, repudiation of claim ordered on account of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. However, as a goodwill gesture, Ops offered 75% of the claim amount on non standard settlement as per law. No response from the complainant was received within 7 days after issue of letter in this respect also. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured, but it is claimed that intimation of loss/theft was given late and complainant has approached this Forum by concealing the material facts.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Amit Chawla, Manager (Legal) along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R35 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                Undisputedly, the vehicle in question was insured with Ops through cover note Ex.C9 for the period from 19.5.2013 to 18.5.2014. FIR No.7 dated 5.2.2014 regarding theft of the vehicle was lodged by claiming that the said theft took place during day time at about 1:30 PM of 23.1.2014. This is revealed by copy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. placed on record Ex.C8=Ex.R3 by both the parties. So, from this document, it is obvious that intimation of theft was given to police after 14 days of theft. However, in investigation report Ex.R16, it is mentioned that intimation to police was given on 29.1.2014 i.e. after two days of theft. In statement of Nitin Jain, it is mentioned as if Honda Eterno Scooter was parked on 26.01.2014 and the same was found missing at 11:00 AM on 27.1.2014. So, contradictory stand in Ex.R14 of report being lodged two days is not correct, particularly when copy of FIR Ex.R26=Ex.R13 itself discloses that this report lodged on 5.2.2014 after claiming theft having taken place on 23.1.2014 at about 1:30 PM. So, papers prepared by the police referred above itself lean in favour of holding as if there was a delay of about 14 days in giving intimation of theft to the police.

7.                In affidavit Ex.CW1/A of complainant, it is mentioned that the vehicle was stolen between 26.1.2014 to 27.1.2014. The contrary versions emerge qua     the date of theft of vehicle in question i.e. as to whether the same took place on 23.1.2014 or during night of 27/28.1.2014. Even if theft treated to have taken place on 27/28.1.2014, despite that intimation to the police was given on 5.2.2014 by lodging FIR Ex.R26=Ex.R13 and as such, there remain delay of 7 days even then. Above referred contradictory stand of date of theft even found after going through the whole of the contents of Ex.C8=Ex.R3.

8.                Undisputedly, the claim was lodged with Ops and that date of giving of intimation to Ops mentioned as 7.2.2014 in the written statement filed by Ops. So, there is delay of 9 days at least if the date of theft taken as 27/28.1.2014. The said vehicle remained untraced is a fact borne from NCRB report Ex.C5 and even from the contents of Ex.C8=Ex.R3. Final closure report took place through letter dated 10.11.2014 as revealed by contents of Ex.R4 because complainant failed to furnish the requisite documents, despite sending of reminders through letters Ex.R6 of date 17.10.2014, Ex.R8 of 23.6.2014 and Ex.R10 of 2.6.2014. Postal receipts Ex.R5, Ex.R7 and Ex.R9 also shows the dispatch of letters to the complainant by the Ops on 23.6.2014 and 17.10.2014 as well as on 10.11.2014. So, certainly submissions advanced by counsel for Ops has force that the complainant himself remained at fault in not submitting the requisite documents to Ops, despite repeated demands. That has been taken as ground for final closure as revealed by contents of Ex.R4.

9.                Perusal of letter Ex.C3 reveals that intimation delay details already submitted vide letter dated 18.11.2014. In this letter Ex.C3, complainant himself admitted that he was not aware as to with which company his vehicle was      insured and that is why, he submitted intimation late to insurance company. In view of late submission of claim for 9 days at least to insurance company and in view of submission of late intimation to police for 7 days, certainly insurance company was divested of its right of taking steps at its own.

10.              As per page no.5 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question Ex.R35, notice to be given in writing of loss or damage or of theft of the vehicle to insurer immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage, so that police may co-operate with the insurer in securing the conviction of the offender. This in fact is envisaged by condition no.1 of page no.5 of Ex.R35. In case, intimation to the police given within 24 hours after theft/loss, but delay of 2 days takes place in giving such intimation to the insurer, then certainly, the same is fatal to the case of the insured is the law laid down in cases titled as New India Insurance Company Limited vs. Trilochan Jane-IV(2012)CPJ-441(N.C.) and Bihar State Hydro Electric Power Corporation Limited vs. National Insurance Company Limited-2015(1) CLT-292(N.C.). Like the facts of the reported cases, as clause is contained in Ex.R5 also, vide which, insured must gave intimation in writing immediately after loss/theft of the insured vehicle, so, delay of 2 days in giving intimation to police, but of 9 days in giving intimation to the insurer in the case before us is fatal to the case of the complainant and as such, the final closure report Ex.R4 is quite appropriate.

11.              However, through Ex.R1, offer was given to the complainant as           a goodwill gesture for settlement of claim on non standard settlement basis @75% of     the claim amount less excess. That offer referred at Sr. No.3 in letter Ex.R4 also by claiming that consent letter for acceptance of the claim of 75% IDV even not submitted within 12 days, which amount to violation of the policy condition no.1. However, the offer put forth through Ex.R1 for settlement on the basis of non standard settlement @75% should be honoured by Ops provided complainant complies with the necessary requirement of submission of the consent letter etc. So, even if complainant not entitled to succeed in his claim for reimbursement of the full insurance amount, despite that Ops should pay the claim on non standard settlement basis @75% as offered through letter Ex.R1.

 12.             Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint disposed of in terms that Ops will pay the claim amount on non standard settlement basis @75% of claim amount less excess as goodwill gesture as per terms of letter Ex. R1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. No order as to costs or of compensation. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

13.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                          (G.K.Dhir)

                              Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:16.01.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.