ORDER
(Passed this on 28th September, 2016)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President.
01. This complaint is regarding non settlement of insurance claim by the Opposite Parties (OP’s).
02. OP’s 1 to 3 respectively are Branch and Head offices of Reliance General Insurance Company. The complainant is the owner of a truck bearing No. CG-04-DB-1924. It was insured with the OP for the period from 29.12.2010 to 28.12.2011 for IDV Rs. 11.50 lakh. He has All India permit to ply the truck. By plying truck he earns his livelihood. On 17.6.2011 he and his driver Mohd. Tasleem were going from Delhi to Agra by the said truck. Near Waghola village they stopped to answer natures call. When they came back they did not find the truck. As it could not be traced out even after search, a police report was given on next day. On 23.11.2011 police filed ´A´ summery as the truck was untraceable. Thereafter he filed insurance claim to the OP’s along with necessary documents. But even after lapse of period nothing was communicated from the OP’s. Hence, a notice was served on the OP’s to settle the claim. But they are neither granting nor rejecting his claim. This amounts to deficiency in service. Hence he has prayed for insurance amount of Rs.11.50 lakh,
compensation for business loss Rs. 4.62 lakh, interest of Rs. 3.22 lakh on insurance claim and Rs.60,000/- compensation for harassment.
03. OP’s filed reply at Ex.7. Denying the allegations, it is stated that the complainant did not supply necessary documents despite repeated demands to process the claim. The intimation of the incident was given late to OP which contravened the policy condition. There was lack of proper care of the truck from loss or theft, which also contravened policy condition. On these grounds the claim could not be settled and it was closed. There is no deficiency in service. The OP 2 and 3 are unnecessarily joined as they have no role to play in day to day business and claim decision of its Branches. The complaint is based on false grounds and hence, prayed to dismiss it.
04. Heard learned counsels for both the sides. Perused documents. After consideration of rival submission, facts and documents we record our findings for the reasons given below.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
05. There is not much dispute regarding ownership of the truck, its insurance and theft during insurance period. The OP rejected
the claim mainly on two grounds. Firstly, there was delay in giving intimation of the incident to it, and secondly, there was negligence in taking proper care of the truck from loss. Both these factors were taken as breach of policy conditions and hence the claim was rejected.
06. From the complaint and documents filed by the complainant it is not clear when he intimated about the theft of truck to the OP. But it appears that intimation was given when police filed ´A´ summery report on 23.11.2011. The incident took place on 17.6.2011 and claim was lodged on 25.4.2013. The OP’s allege that they received intimation only on 25.4.2013. We find substance in OP’s averment because as per the complaint as well as legal notice intimation by way of claim was given on 25.4.2013. There is no document to show intimation was given prior to that date. The complainant has filed copies of letters as document No. 20 & 21 to show that he had intimated OPs about theft by these letters. But on these letters there is no acknowledgement of receipt of the same by the OP’s nor any date is mentioned thereon. Therefore from these letters it cannot be said that these letters were given immediately after the incident. Since OP’s denied the letters there is every doubt whether the same were really given to OP’s and this fact has to be proved by the complainant, which he failed to prove.
07. From the averment in the complaint it can be seen that the truck was parked by the road side and he and his driver both left it unattended and went to answer nature call. In their absence somebody stole the truck. Thus before leaving the truck on road they should have taken proper care of it against theft. The policy conditions specifically state that any loss, damage or theft of insured vehicle shall be immediately intimated in writing to insurance company and proper care of the insured vehicle shall be taken against loss or damage. If policy conditions are breached then insurance company is not liable to indemnify the loss or damage. We, however, do not attach much weight to this condition of negligence in taking proper care of the truck. The complainant has relied on few judgments to support his case.
In United India Insurance Co v/s C.M. Ibrahim Kutty F.A No. A/89/545 decided on 6.4.2011 by Kerla St. Commission the facts were totally different. In that case the claim was rejected on the ground that the complainant was not the owner of the ill fated vehicle as it was sold to third person and hence he had no insurable interest to claim damages. This ground was found to be not proved, hence the claim was allowed. In National Insurance Co. v/s Rajesh Ohri Rev. Pet No. 2002 /07 decided by NC on 25.7.2011 the claim was rejected on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was holding fake driving license at the time of accident. But that was not found to be correct. In National Insurance Co. v/s Mohd. Ishaq Rev. Pet No. 3657 & 3658/ 11 decided by NC on 28.2.2012 the claim was rejected for not furnishing all documents to insurance company. This ground was held to be not correct and claim was allowed. In Tata AIG Life Insurance Co v/s Smt. Sita Devi Appeal No. 49/12 decided by State Comm. Rajsthan on 26.3.2012 the case was of mediclaim and it was contended by the insurance company that the insured had pre existing disease which was not disclosed by her at the time of taking policy. But from the facts this defense was not accepted and the claim was allowed. Thus it would be seen that all the judgments are on totally different facts which have no similarity with the present case.
08. Therefore the OP’s have done no wrong in rejecting the claim for committing breach of conditions, particularly delay in intimation. It is also to be noted that the complainant has claimed
compensation for consequential loss in business. Such relief is not permissible under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. We therefore pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) The complaint is dismissed.
(2) No order as to cost.
(3) Copy of the judgment be provided free of cost
to both the parties.
