DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:123 of 2011] Date of Institution : 09.03.2011 Date of Decision :11.01.2012 --------------------------------------- Sh. Baljit Singh son of Sh. Kulwant Singh, Age 41 years resident of House no.2511, Sector 70, Mohali. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.145-146, 2nd Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. 2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO no.212-214, 1st Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Ajit Singh, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Kapil Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh. Baljit Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs:- i) To pay Rs.1,00,000/- being the claim amount along with interest @18% per annum; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got his (Maruti 800) car bearing Regd. No.PB-65-A-8265 comprehensively insured with the opposite party vide cover note (annexure A/1). The complainant was also issued a single page policy (Annexure A/2) with its backside completely blank. The complainant paid a premium of Rs.3,547/-. The Insured Declared value of the vehicle was Rs.1 Lac and the said vehicle was insured for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2010. According to the complainant, unfortunately, on 15.11.2009, the said vehicle was stolen. F.I.R. No.432 dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure A/3) was lodged with concerned Police Station. The opposite parties were also intimated about the theft of the car on their toll free numbers. The complainant also informed the agents of the opposite party – insurance company namely Mr. Mann and Mr. Varun on their mobile numbers. When nothing was heard, the complainant wrote letter dated 28.1.2010 (Annexure A/4) to the opposite parties and also submitted untraced report u/s 173 Cr.P.C (Annexure A/5) along with the said letter. Thereafter, another request letter dated 23.11.2010 (Annexures A/6 & A/7) for disbursing the claim was given to the opposite party No.1 through registered post as well as by hand. However, the claim was repudiated by the opposite parties vide their letter dated 27.11.2010 (Annexure A/8) on the ground that there was a delay of 80 days in intimating about the theft, which violated Condition No.1 of the insurance policy. According to the complainant, repudiation of the claim in such an arbitrary manner amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the opposite parties, it has been admitted that the Maruti car of the complainant was insured with it for the period from 30.10.2009 to 29.10.2010 vide policy No.2007792311005349 (Annexure R-1). It is pleaded that the copy of the policy along with terms and conditions was duly supplied to the complainant. According to the opposite parties, the car of the complainant was stolen on 15.3.2010 and intimation regardint theft was received 3.2.2010 vide letter dated 28.1.2010 (Annexure R-1A). It has been pleaded that immediately after receiving this letter/intimation, opposite parties vide their letter dated 3.2.2010 (Annexure R-2) asked the complainant to furnish reasons for the delay of 80 days in intimating the theft of car. An investigator was also appointed by the opposite parties who submitted his report dated 15.3.2010 (Annexure R-3). The opposite parties thereafter sent reminders dated 18.5.2010, 2.6.2010 and 14.7.2010 (Annexures R-4 to R-6) to the complainant regarding reasons for the delay and for furnishing the untraceable report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. According to the opposite parties, the complainant did not respond to the reminders/letters but submitted the untraceable report under Section 173 Cr.P.C issued by the Court of Sh. Amanpreet Singh, JMIC, Mohali. However, the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 27.11.2010 (Annexure R-7) on the ground that the intimation of theft was given after a delay of about 80 days, which was in violation of Condition No.1 of the insurance policy, According to the opposite parties, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record. 5. Admittedly, the car was stolen on the 15.11 2009. F.I.R. (Annexure A-3) is dated 16.11.2009. The claim was filed with OP No.1 vide letter dated 23.11.2010 (Annexures A-6 & A-7). 6. It is not disputed that the intimation to the police was give on 16.11.2009 i.e. immediately the next day of the occurrence. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by OPs on the sole ground that it failed to intimate the Insurance Company immediately after the theft took place and has thus violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The case of the complainant is that he was never supplied the copy of the complete terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, was not aware of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Admittedly, theintimation regarding theft of the car was received by the Insurance Company for the first time on 16.11.2009. 7. Clause (1) under the head “CONDITIONS” of the Insurance Policy reads as under: - “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 injury 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.” 8. As per Condition (1) reproduced above, the complainant was required to intimate the police as well as Insurance Company immediately after the theft of the car. In case titled New India Assurance Company Vs. Trilochan Jane, First Appeal No.321 of 2005 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 09.12.2009, the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under: - “In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent 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 Policy 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.” 9. In the above cited case, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that delay of 9 days in reporting the matter to the Insurance Company amounts to violation of condition of the policy. In the present case, though the complainant has intimated the police immediately on 16.11.2009, yet there is a delay of approximately 80 days on his part in intimating the opposite parties. 10. Faced with this situation, it was argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the complainant that the terms and conditions of the policy were not conveyed to him, so, he is not bound by the terms and conditions of the policy reproduced above. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has cited the case titled M/s. Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported as I (2000) CPJ 1 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “8. It is the fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties know. The insured has a duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty of the Insurance Company and its agents to disclose all material facts in their knowledge since obligation of good faith applies to both equally. 9. In view of the above settled position of law we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the National Commission is not correct. As the above terms and conditions of the standard policy wherein the exclusion clause was included, were neither a part of the contract of insurance nor disclosed to the appellant, respondent cannot claim the benefit of the said exclusion clause. Therefore, the finding of the National Commission is untenable in law.” 11. It has been asserted by the complainant in Para No.2 of the complaint that only Reliance Private Car Vehicle Certificate cum Policy with its back page blank (Annexure A-2) was sent to him by the Ops. It does not contain the terms and conditions of the policy relied upon by the OPs. No other document was sent to him along with this document. 12. On the other hand, OPs have placed on record Annexure R-1, whcih includes the Reliance Private Car Vehicle Certificate cum Policy and Reliance Private Car Package Policy is a six page document and is independent of Reliance Private Car Vehicle Certificate cum Policy. There is no mention in Annexure R-1 about the fact that a detailed policy is annexed with it. In such circumstances, even the forwarding letter has not been annexed by the OPs to show that both these documents were sent to the complainant together. In these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the OPs to prove that the Reliance Private Car Package Policy was actually sent to the complainant and it was received by him. No evidence to this effect has been placed on record. Also there is nothing on record to disbelieve the deposition made by the complainant to the effect that the said policy containing the detailed terms and conditions was received by the complainant. So, the ratio of the case M/s. Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(supra) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 13. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following direction to the OPs: - (i) to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant being the Insured Declared value of the vehicle;. (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony. (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 14. This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund Rs.1,30,000/- i.e. (Rs.1,00,000 + Rs.30,000) to the complainant along with penal interest @18% p.a. from the dates of filing the complaint i.e.09.03.2011 till its realization besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 15. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 11th January 2012. - Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.123 of 2011 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 06.01.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. Announced. 11.01.2012 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
