CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.332/2016
SH. SATISH SINGHAL
S/O SH. BHIM SINGH
R/O H.NO.161, VILLAGE DEVLI,
NEW DELHI-110062
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(THROUGH ITS MANAGER/DIRECTOR)
D-160/2, 2ND & 3RD FLOOR, OKHLA, PHASE-1,
NEW DELHI-110020
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 28.01.2019
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a new Pajero Sports car bearing No.DL3CBB0200 from Excel Motors on 09.07.2012 for a sum of Rs.24,43,000/-. The complainant had got his car insured from time to time and lastly it was insured with OP for the period from 06.07.2015 to midnight of 05.07.2016. As per the last insurance policy issued by OP and bearing policy No.1305552311007316 the value of the car i.e. IDV was Rs.17,99,975/-.
It is further stated that the said car was stolen from his house on the intervening night of 13/14.11.2015 and in this regard an FIR was lodged on 14.11.2015. The untraced report was filed by the Police before Ld. ACMM which was accepted by Ld. ACMM on 29.01.2016. The complainant also lodged a claim with OP for reimbursement of the price of the said vehicle as per IDV i.e. Rs.17,99,975/-. The complainant filed his claim with OP wherein an investigator was also appointed by OP who on the pretext of processing the claim made the complainant to sign various blank forms, papers and even made him write something as per his dictate.
It is further stated that the complainant was shocked to receive a letter dated 05.03.2016 from the office OP vide which the complainant was informed that his claim has been rejected wherein it has been mentioned that “it is observed that the captioned vehicle has been stolen on 13.11.2015 under the circumstances that the central locking system of the said vehicle was not functional and also left the key of the vehicle in the dashboard of the vehicle and the and the vehicle left unattended thus leaving the captioned vehicle in drivable condition”, which is not the true picture and the same is a baseless theory developed by OP in order to deprive the complainant from his legitimate claim. Aggrieved with the action of OP, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.07.2007 to OP, however, the same was not replied. Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service, the present complainant has been filed whereby the complaint has prayed that OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.17,99,975/- towards the IDV of the vehicle alongwith interest and also pay compensation and litigation expenses.
OP in reply has not disputed that the aforesaid vehicle was duly insured on 06.06.2015 for IDV of Rs.17,99,975/-. It is stated that the car was stolen on 14.11.2015 but OP was given intimation about the theft on 17.11.2015 which is in violation of condition no.1 of the policy:-
Condition no.1. - Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this Policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.”
It is stated that upon receiving the information regarding the claim, OP appointed Mr. Sunil Jain as surveyor. As per surveyor report, there is gross negligence on the part of the complainant as he had himself stated in writing that the central locking system of the said vehicle was not working properly from 3-4 days and the complainant had not taken proper security measures by changing the locks of the vehicle as they are not functional before the said theft incident. Due to the same he had kept the used key of the vehicle in the dashboard of the vehicle when it was stolen. It is submitted that the conduct of the complainant amount to gross negligence and violation of condition No.4:-
“The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle insured or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle insured be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.”
It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
OP has appointed Mr. Sunil Jain as surveyor and the surveyor has given a finding the he has verified the things and in his opinion theft of the aforesaid car appears to be true and genuine as per the enquiries and submitted documents. So it is proved from the report of the surveyor also that the theft has taken place on the intervening night of 13/14.11.2015. It is also proved on record that immediately after the theft, the complainant has lodged an FIR No.019461/15 u/s 379 of IPC in PS Neb Sarai, Delhi.
It is significant to note that the claim has not been repudiated on the ground of violation of condition no.1 of the policy i.e. intimation was not given immediately to the insurer, rather it was given on 17.11.2015. It is significant to note that the complainant has specifically stated that he was not aware of the fact that intimation is to be given immediately and this fact he has also stated before the Investigator and the investigator has mentioned the same in his report. In fact there was hardly any delay. The most important fact in the case of theft is that intimation is to be given to the Police immediately. In this case intimation was given to the Police on the same very day.
The investigator has reported that genuinely the theft of vehicle has taken place and moreover the claim has not been repudiated on the ground of violation of condition no.1. Even otherwise the violation of terms and conditions of policy has no relevance in case of theft of vehicle. The claim has been repudiated on the ground of violation of condition no.4 only on the ground that the central locking system of the said vehicle was not functional and insured has left the key of the vehicle in the dashboard of the vehicle and the vehicle left unattended thus leaving the caption vehicle in the drivable condition.
It is significant to note that the complainant has specifically stated that Investigator on the pretext of processing the claim, made the complainant to sign various blank forms/papers and even asked him to write something as per his dictate. The complainant has clearly stated in the FIR that one key of the car was kept in the car and also the original documents of the car and the wallet of his son, which was having his original driving license.
It is not that the complainant has not locked his car. What the complainant has stated is that he has kept one key of the car in the dash board. It is not the case where the key has been left in the ignition key of the car. Rather one key was kept in the dashboard and it was so stated in the FIR. The car was properly locked. One key was with the complainant and the same was handed over to the surveyor. Even before the surveyor, the complainant has stated that one key of the car was kept in the dashboard. The car was parked outside the house of the complainant. There is no violation of condition No.4 of the policy.
Here it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nitin Khandelwal – IV(2008) CPJ 1 (SC) – held that in case of theft of vehicle, the breach of condition that the vehicle was used as taxi though it was insured for personal use, was not germane to the main condition of the contract.
It is also useful to refer to case of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Manoj – III(2015) CPJ 99 (Har.) – in that case, Hon’ble Court in para 6 held as under:-
“6. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant-opposite party is not acceptable. The evidence available on the record establishes that it is a genuine claim of the respondent-complaint. F.I.R.No.327 dated August 31st, 2011 was recorded and intimation was also given to the Insurance Company. Thus, it is amply proved that the vehicle was stolen and could not be traced. It was a genuine claim of the complainant in view of law laid down by this Commission in Shriram General Insurance Company Limited V. Rajesh Kumar, 2014(2) CLT390, wherein reference of the circular dated September 20th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) has been given. 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 claim, 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.”
It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to pay IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 17,99,975/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
