Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/260/2014

Parmod Kumar S/o Raghuvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Brijesh Partap

14 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                        Complaint No. 260  of  2014.

                                                                                        Date of institution: 09.06.2014.

                                                                                       Date of decision: 14.09.2016.

Parmod Kumar aged about 41 years son of Shri Raghuvir Singh, resident of village Kanhri Kalan, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                                          Versus

1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No.2, Tower-F, 1^st Floor, DLF Building, I.T. Park, Chandigarh-160101, through its Manager.
2. Sh. Kuldhir Singh agent, Code No. 20A07709, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Office at Kamani Chowk, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                … Respondents. 

             

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Brijesh Partap, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No. 1.

              Respondent No.2 already ex-parte.  

 

ORDER ( Ashok Kumar Garg President)

 

1.                     Complainant Parmod Kumar filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant was registered owner of the motorcycle Honda Shine bearing registration No. HR-02S-0748 which was comprehensively insured for a sum IDV of Rs. 26000/-. with respondent No.1 (respondent hereinafter referred as OP) i.e. Reliance General Insurance Company limited vide its policy bearing No.2004522312009471 valid from 15.10.2012 to 14.10.2013. On 12.04.2013, brother of the complainant namely Bhanwar Singh had gone to BDPO Office, Mustfabad at about 12.00 noon and he had parked his motorcycle outside the BDPO office and when he came out from the office at about 1.00 P.M., then he found that the motorcycle in question was missing from the spot. After that, complainant intimated to the OP Insurance Company vide its claim No. 2131043003 and also lodged a FIR bearing No. 69 dated 26.04.2013 under section 379 IPC in police station Chhapper.(YNR) All the original documents i.e. registration certificate, insurance policy were also stolen with the motorcycle in question. OP No.1 demanded some documents and all the documents were supplied except report under section 173 Cr.P.C. because the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was not completed at that time. The complainant requested the OP No.1 to make the payment of the insurance amount but OP No.1 has sent a letter dated 28.01.2014 closing the case file of the complainant as “final closure”. After that, complainant had made so many requests to the OP No.1 to make the payment of insured amount on account of theft of  motorcycle in question but all in vain. Lastly prayed for directing the respondents to make the payment of insured amount of Rs. 26000/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement but OP No.2 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.12.2014. Op No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; there is no negligence or deficiency in service; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts of this case are that an intimation regarding theft of motorcycle of the complainant bearing registration No.HR-02S-0748 was received by Op No.1 Insurance Company and on receipt of the said intimation, insured was desired to complete the necessary formalities and to submit necessary documents i.e. copy of FIR, RC, Insurance Policy etc. for processing the claim. On receipt of the copy of FIR, it was found that the alleged date of theft was 12.04.2013 but the FIR was lodged on 26.04.2013 i.e. after a gap of 14 days. In this regard a letter was written to the complainant to clarify as to why there was a delay of 14 days and as to why his claim should not be repudiated on account of violation of policy condition No.1. Besides this, OP No.1 insurance company also vides its letter dated 08.11.2013 desired the complainant to submit the following documents:

 (i)  Vehicle registration certificate,( ii) Form No. 28, 29 and 30 duly signed by the owner,( iii). Final report under section 173 Cr. P.C. (iv) copy of FIR duly attested, (v) letter of subrogation on the stamp paper of Rs. 100/-, (vi)  letter of indemnity on Rs. 100/- stamp paper, (vii) all the original keys, viii cancelled blank cheque of the insured.

A reminder to this effect was also given on 22.11.2013, 16.01.2014 but the complainant did not respond and not complete the desired formalities of the company, so, the claim file of the complainant was closed vide its letter dated 28.01.2014  as  “No Claim “for want of necessary formalities.  On merit, controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, it has been prayed that as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Insurance Company. Hence, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and photo copies of documents such as :- copy of FIR as Annexure  C-1, copy of V.T lodged on the same day i.e. 12.04.2013 as Annexure C-2, Final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted on 19.04.2013 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-4 and closed his evidence.

 5.                    However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant tendered untrace report issued by JMIC, Yamuna Nagar on dated 07.09.2015 which was ordered to be marked as Annexure C-5.

 6.                    On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Chawla, Deputy Manager Legal as Annexure RW/A and photo copies of documents such as letter dated 08.11.2013 as Annexure R-1, Letter dated 22.11.2013 as Annexure R-2, Letter dated 16.01.2014 as Annexure R-3, Letter dated 28.01.2014 as Annexure R-4, Attested copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully. 

8.                     It is not disputed that motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02S-0748 was not insured with the OP No.1 Insurance Company for an IDV of Rs. 26000/- vide policy bearing No. 2004522312009471 valid from 15.10.2012 to 14.10.2013, which is duly evident from the copy of insurance policy Annexure C-4/R-5. It is also not disputed that motorcycle in question was stolen on 12.04.2013 during the currency of insurance policy in question which is evident from the copy of FIR bearing No. 69 dated 26.04.2013, copy of final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Annexure C-3 and copy of V.T. issued by P.S. Chhappar on the same day i.e. 12.04.2013 Annexure C-2.

9.                     From the perusal of copy of untraced report issued by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar on dated 07.09.2015 Annexure C-5 and copy of report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Annexure C-4, it is evident that the motorcycle in question could not be traced out by the police of P.S. Chhappar. The plea of the OP Insurance Company that the complainant has lodged the FIR on 26.04.2013 whereas alleged theft took place on 12.04.2013, so, there was violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy in question and further, the complainant has not completed the formalities after receiving the various letters Annexure R-1 to R-4, is not tenable as from the perusal of copy of V.T. issued by the P.S. Chhappar Annexure C-2, it is clearly evident that complainant intimated to the police immediately on the same day of occurrence, so, the complainant cannot be held liable for the act of the police for non-lodging the FIR immediately. The same view has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as New India Assurance Co. ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Others, 2015(3) CLT page 476 wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim- Theft of vehicle- Delay in FIR- Held- The complainants cannot be held responsible for the time taken by the police in registering the FIR- He discharged his contractual obligation under the policy for informing the concerned police station. Further from the perusal of the untraced report under section 173 Cr.P.C. issued by Ilaqua Magistrate/JMIC Yamuna Nagar on dated 07.09.2015 Annexure C-5, it is also evident that motorcycle in question of the complainant could not be traced out.

10.                   We have perused the written statement filed by the OP Insurance Company but not a single word has been mentioned by OP Insurance Company that complainant had not informed the OP Insurance Company immediately. Even the OP Insurance Company has not disclosed in its written statement that on what date, the complainant informed to the OP Insurance Company and in the absence of any evidence or version, we are of the considered view that OP Insurance Company was duly informed immediately by the complainant and there was no violation of the condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy on the part of complainant.  Even from the other angle also, when the Op Insurance Company was asking to the complainant to submit the form No.28, 29 and 30 and letter of subrogation as well as letter of indemnity bond and cancelled blank cheque, which is duly evident from the letter Annexure R-1 to R-4, so, it is clear that Op Insurance Company was ready to settle the claim of the complainant but the OP Insurance Company failed to settle the claim of the complainant the reasons best known to them.

11.                   In the circumstances noted above and case law referred, we are of the considered view that in the present complaint the OPs Insurance Company have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of delay in intimation and for not submitting the documents. Hence, the OPs Insurance Company is liable to pay the claim amount as per IDV of vehicle i.e. Rs. 26,000/-.

12.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP No.1 Insurance Company to pay the insured amount of Rs. 26,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization subject to submission of subrogation letter, indemnity bond, NOC from the Financer, if any, and other relevant documents/papers, form no. 28 to 30  which are necessary to transfer the vehicle in the name of OP Insurance company  and further to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 14.09.2016.

                                                                                          ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER