Haryana

StateCommission

A/298/2015

PARTAP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

NAVEEN SINGH PANWAR

04 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :        298 of 2015

Date of Institution:        27.03.2015

Date of Decision :         04.11.2015

 

Partap Singh s/o Sh. Abhay Ram, Resident of House No.46, Dindarpur, Delhi-43.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through its Director, Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand, Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.

2.     Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through its Manager, 570, Naigaum, Cross Road, next to Royal Industrial Estate, Wadala (W) Mumbai-400031.

3.     Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through its Manager, Palm Court, Ground Floor 4 and 5 Sector 14, Gurgaon.

                                     Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                

Present:              Shri Naveeen Singh Panwar, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for respondents.  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal has been filed by unsuccessful complainant to set aside the order dated January 5^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      Partap Singh-complainant/appellant got his car, bearing registration No.DL-IV B 3741, Chevrolet Tavera, insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-opposite parties from February 7^th, 2009 to February 6^th, 2010, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-1). The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) was Rs.4,30,000/-. 

3.      On April 2^nd, 2009 at about 1:00 P.M. the complainant parked his car in front of ‘Sai Baba Temple’ Nazafgarh and went to pay obeisance. When the complainant returned, he found the car missing. It was stolen by some unknown person. He informed the Police of Police Station Nazafgarh (Delhi). The Police recorded Daily Diary Report No.28A dated April 2^nd, 2009 (Exhibit C-4). F.I.R. No.144 (Exhibit C-3) was lodged on May 6^th, 2009. The Insurance Company was informed. Untraced Report (Exhibit C-5) was submitted by the Police.

4.      The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated March 25^th, 2010 (Exhibit C-6) stating that there was delay of thirty eight days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. So, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant.

5.      Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6.      The Insurance Company-Opposite Parties, contested the complaint by filing reply denying the averments made in the complaint and reiterating the fact stated in the repudiation letter (Exhibit C-6).

7.      The issue for consideration is as to whether the Insurance Company was justified in denying complainant’s claim on the ground stated in the repudiation letter or not?

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has argued that immediately after the incident, the Police was informed, as is evident from the Daily Diary Report Exhibit C-4. Untraced Report (Exhibit C-5) was submitted by the Police. No evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to rebut this fact.

9.      In view of the above, it is abundantly established that information was given to the Police without any delay. Therefore, the delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company, if any, is not significant in view of circular Ref: IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/ CIR/ 216/ 09/ 2011 dated September 20^th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short ‘IRDA’). It has been specifically mentioned 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 operative part of the circular reads 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.”

10.    In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and complaint is allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.4,30,000/-, that is, the Insured Declared Value of the car to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realization.

11.    The complainant is directed to execute the letter of subrogation, to hand over the keys of the car, transfer the Registration Certificate in the name of the Insurance Company and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose.

 

Announced 04.11.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL