THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Jasmer Singh son of Banta Singh, R/o Village Mundian Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, SCO 212-214, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:     Sh.P.D. GOEL                                             PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                         MEMBER

DR.(MRS)MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Tejinder Pal Singh, Counsel for complainant.

Sh. Tajender K.Joshi, Counsel for OP.

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant’s Indigo Car bearing Regd. No.PB-71-0112, duly insured with OP, met with an accident on 25.9.2009 in the area of Police Station Kathgarh, District SBS Nagar. An F.I.R. No.54, dated 26.9.2009 under Section 279/338/427 IPC was registered at P.S.Kathgarh. The vehicle was taken into possession by the police.  Intimation about the accident was given to OP through its representative Sh.Harpreet Singh on 26.9.2009.  The car was got released on Supardari from the court of S.D.J.M., Balachaur on 10.10.2009. The vehicle was taken to M/s Joshi Auto Zone (Pvt.) Ltd. an authorized dealer, for necessary repair.  The surveyor of OP Company inspected the vehicle and asked the dealer to repair it.  The car was repaired accordingly and a bill of repair was raised to the tune of Rs.2,44,535/- and installation of new auto battery of Rs.3900/-.  The complainant approached OP to make payment but they kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other.  Ultimately, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.2,47,435/- from his own pocket.  However, the OP instead of passing his claim, repudiated it, on flimsy grounds that the intimation regarding the accident and consequential loss to the vehicle had been given after the delay of 69 days.

2.                OP filed reply and admitted the issuance of insurance policy.  It is denied that Sh.Harpreet Singh is the representative of OP Company.  It is submitted that complainant gave information about the alleged accident to the Insurance Company on 3.12.2009, whereupon a surveyor was appointed, who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report.  As per surveyor’s report, the liability of the insurance company was Rs.1,54,000/- subject to terms & conditions of the policy.  It is also submitted that complainant has breached Condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy as the intimation was given the OP - Insurance Company about the alleged loss on 3.12.2009 i.e. after a delay of 69 days, which caused great prejudice to the Company to get the vehicle surveyed and assess the loss.  It is denied that complainant paid Rs.2,44,535/- for repair and Rs.3900/- for new auto battery.  Denying rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.                The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the vehicle bearing registration No.PB-71-0112, duly insured with OP, met with an accident on 25.9.2009. An F.I.R. No.54, dated 26.9.2009 under Section 279/338/427 IPC was registered at P.S.Kathgarh – Annexure C-2. It was further argued that the intimation about the accident was given to the OP through its representative Sh.Harpreet Singh on 26.9.2009.  It was lastly argued that the OP - Insurance Company had illegally repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds that the intimation regarding the accident and consequential loss to the vehicle had been given after the delay of 69 days.

6.                The learned Counsel for the OP raised the arguments that the complainant gave information about the alleged accident to the OP - Insurance Company on 3.12.2009. It was contended that the complainant had breached Condition No.1 of the insurance policy as the intimation was given to the OP - insurance company about the alleged loss on 3.12.2009 i.e. after a delay of 69 days, which caused great prejudice to the company to get the vehicle surveyed and assess the loss. 

7.                The other facts are admitted. The only point which calls decision from this Forum is whether the repudiation of the claim by the OP – Insurance Company vide repudiation letter dated 18.6.2010 – Annexure C-1 is legal and genuine. The answer to this is in the negative.

8.                The insurance company had repudiated the claim vide repudiation letter dated 18.6.2010 – Annexure C-1, stating therein, that the claim intimation has been received on 3.12.2009 for the loss of the vehicle, whereas, the accident occurred on 25.9.2009, so there is a delay of 69 days, which is in violation of Condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the policy. Annexure R-2 is the copy of terms and conditions at page No.21 of the reply. Condition No.1 of the insurance policy is at page No.23 which is reproduced as under :-

“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 by the insured. Notice shall 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 the 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.”

9.                According to the learned Counsel for the OP, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 25.9.2009, whereas, the intimation to the OP was given on 3.12.2009 i.e. after a gap of 69 days. Thus, the insured has violated the Condition No.1 of the insurance policy and the claim has been rightly repudiated by the OP vide repudiation letter dated 18.6.2010 - Annexure C-1. The learned Counsel for the complainant raised the arguments that the complainant has specifically alleged vide para No.4 of the complaint that he gave intimation about the alleged accident to Sh.Harpreet Singh, the representative of the OP stationed at Ropar on 26.9.2009 on his mobile phone No.94171-10566.

10.              The OP – Insurance Company has categorically replied that the said Harpreet Singh is not a representative of the insurance company. To prove the said fact, the complainant has filed his self serving affidavit and the OP while denying the said fact, has also filed the affidavit of Sh.Krishna Kant, Legal Manager. Admittedly, there is no other evidence on the file except the self serving affidavit of the complainant to prove that the complainant gave the intimation with regard to the accident of the vehicle in question to Sh.Harpreet Singh, the representative of the OP - Insurance Company, which has been denied by the OP. Thus, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not produced sufficient evidence on the file to prove that the information was given by him to Sh.Harpreet Singh, the representative of the OP – Insurance Company on 26.9.2009.

11.              The bare perusal of Condition No.1 of the insurance policy, referred to above, establishes on record that the insured is required to give notice in writing to the OP - Insurance Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or incident. In the instant case, the intimation was given to the OP about the alleged loss on 3.12.2009 i.e. after a delay of 69 days. Thus, we are of the opinion that the complainant has violated Condition No.1 of the insurance policy, referred to above. The delay in intimation had caused great prejudice to the OP to get the vehicle surveyed and assess the loss. Reliance placed on New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane, First Appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein, it was held as under :-

“In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the OP to inform the Police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the Police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the Police as it deprives the insures of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle.”

Reliance also placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in Appeal No.271 of 2009 titled as The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ranjit Singh.

12.              Now, it is established on record that the complainant gave the intimation about the alleged accident to the OP – Insurance Company after 69 days of the accident. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Condition No.1 of the terms and conditions, referred to above, has been violated. In view of this, we have got no hesitation to conclude that the repudiation of the claim vide repudiation letter dated 18.6.2010 – Annexure C-1 is legal and valid. We do not want to go into the further details of the matter as the complaint cannot succeed as the complainant has committed the breach of Condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the policy.

13.              As a result of the above discussion, the repudiation of the claim is held to be legal & valid and the complaint is accordingly ordered to be dismissed, with no order as to costs.

14.               The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.