Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/810/2012

Vijender Singh S/o Ranbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance CO.ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Sohi

09 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 810  of  2012.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 30.07.2012

                                                                                              Date of decision: 09.03.2016.

Vijender Singh aged about 26 years son of Sh. Ranbir Singh, resident of village Tjakpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                    Versus

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 212-214, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                                … Respondents.

                       

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Ravinder Sohi, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Vijender Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 amended uptodate praying therein that the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to make the insured amount of Rs. 32,219/- on account of theft of motorcycle alongwith interest and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant was registered owner of the motorcycle make Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No. HR-02T/6000 which was insured with the Op Insurance Company vide policy bearing No. 2009792312002600 valid from 8.10.2009 to 7.10.2010 for a sum of Rs. 32,219/-. During the currency of the insurance policy in question on 10.9.2010 motor cycle in question was stolen by some unknown person from Yamuna Nagar and regarding this FIR bearing No. 475 dated 11.09.2010 under section 379 IPC was registered in police station City Yamuna Nagar. A claim was also lodged with the OP Insurance Company vide claim No. 2101212070 and all  the required documents were submitted by the complainant. A surveyor/investigator was also deputed, who submitted his report to the OP Insurance Company. Untraced report under section 173 Cr.P.C. after obtaining from the court on 29.11.2011 and NOC from the Bank was also submitted in the office of the OPs at Chandigarh by the complainant. Thereafter, again complainant received a letter from the Op Insurance Company to submit the documents and in that response the complainant again sent the copy of untraced report as well as NOC of the Bank vide courier on 14.6.2012 to the office of OP Insurance Company but despite that OP Insurance Company failed to make the payment of the motorcycle in question. Ultimately a legal notice dated 22.06.2012 to make the payment of insurance on account of theft of motorcycle was also issued to the insurance company but no payment is made till today. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Insurance company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no deficiency in service and on merit it has been admitted that an intimation was received by the Op Insurance Company regarding the theft of motorcycle in question and on intimation, the complainant was asked to submit the necessary documents including the claim form, copy of FIR, letter to RTO regarding theft intimation, RC, purchase invoice of vehicle, letter to NCRB, untraced report and the reminders were also issued vide letter dated 16.11.2010, 8.12.2010 and 5.1.2011, copy of which is Annexure R-1 to R-3. However, the insured did not submit any documents in this regarding and finding no alternative on account of non receipt of documents, the claim was closed as “NO CLAIM” vide letter dated 5.1.2011 (Annexure R-3). It has been further mentioned that alleged theft took place on 10.9.2010 whereas FIR No. 475 was lodged on 11.9.2010 i.e. after one day and insurance company was also not intimated immediately in utter violation of the policy condition No.1. Hence, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated as no claim by the Insurance company. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint being no deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Company.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/a and documents such as Photo copy of untraceable report dated 28.11.2011 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of statement of virender Singh recorded in the CJM Court on 28.11.2011 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of letter dated 14.6.2012 regarding deposit of NOC and Untraceable report as annexure C-3, Photo copy of registered AD legal notice as Annexure C-4,  Postal receipt as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Vineet Solanki, Assistant Manager, Legal Reliance Gen. Insurance Co. Chandigarh as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of letter dated 16.11.2010 as Annexure R-1, Photo copies of reminder dated 8.l2.2010 and 05.01.2011 as Annexure R-2 & R-3, Photo copy of insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions as Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Insurance Company..

6.                     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.  Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite party reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02T-6000 and motorcycle in question was insured with the OP insurance company vide insurance cover note No. 2009792312002600 valid from 8.10.2009 to 7.10.2010 (Annexure R-4) for a sum insured of Rs. 32,219/- and a premium of Rs. 863/- was paid in this regard to the OPs insurance company. It is not disputed that the motorcycle in question was stolen on 10.9.2010 which is evident from FIR No. 475 dated 11.9.2010 registered in police station City, Yamuna Nagar and a claim was lodged with the OPs Insurance Company by the complainant.

8.                     After hearing both the parties and going through the documents, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Company.  As the arguments advanced by the counsel for the Op Insurance Company that the complainant late intimated to the Insurance Company as well as to the police, have no weightage because OP Insurance Company has totally failed to disclose the date on which the complainant was intimated to the OP Insurance Company. Even the Op Insurance Company did not bother to file the intimation letter submitted by the complainant and in the absence of cogent evidence it cannot be presumed that Op Insurance Company was late intimated. Further it is admitted case that FIR bearing No.475 has been lodged on 11.9.2010 in the P.S. City Yamuna Nagar i.e. within 48 hours of the alleged theft. We have also perused the untraced report issued by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial magistrate on 26.11.2011 (Annexure C-1), from which it is evident that motorcycle in question was not traced out by the police. The plea of the OP Insurance Company is that the complainant has not submitted the documents mentioned in the letters and reminders dated 16.11.2010, 8.12.2010 and 5.1.2011 Annexure R-1 to R-3 is also not having any weightage as it was the duty of the Insurance Company to depute the Investigator to verify the facts of the case and submit the report if the facts were otherwise but neither the investigator or surveyor has been deputed by the Insurance Company nor any report has been submitted by the OP Insurance Company to prove the facts otherwise.  On the other angle also it is not the case of the OP Insurance Company that the complainant was not the registered owner of the motorcycle in question and insurance policy was also not issued in the name of complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs referred the case law titled as New India Assurance Company Versus Trilochan Jane, First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009, United India Assurance Company Versus Harchand Rai JT 2004(8) page 8 in which it has been held that “word immediate mentioned in the policy is to be construed strictly which means at once  and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy has to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted”. Further draw our attention towards the case law titled as Bachan Singh vs. OIC ltd. 2014(3) CLT page 103(NC), in which it has been held that “ Consumer Protection Act1986, Section 2(1)(g)- Insurance Claim- Theft of insured truck- Delay I intimation to insurance company and also delay in lodging the Fir- Held-That the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of the late registration of FIR and late intimation to the insurance company”

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the complainant referred the case law titled as Mohammad Ejaj Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Others, reported in 2014(4) CLT page 161 and also referred the case law titled as Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram 2014(2) CLT page 386 Hon’ble State Commission in which it has also held that “ in case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane- A delay of 15 days is not significant in such a case”. Further referred the case law titled as Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar, 2014(2) CLT page 390 Hon’ble State Commission Haryana, Panchkula wherein it has held that “ Delay of 12 days in intimation to the insurance company- there may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim, which is otherwise proved to be genuine”. And further referred the case law titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma,  2011-4 PLR and lastly draw our attention towards the Instruction of IRDA “That the insurer cannot reject claims amount for delay in intimation”. Lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint.

 

10                    In the present case FIR bearing No. 475 has been lodged by the complainant within 48 hours i.e. on the next date of theft. Hence, it cannot be said that there is any inordinary delay on the part of complainant to inform the police. Further Op Insurance Company has not filed any cogent evidence regarding the date on which date the intimation was given to the insurance company. In the absence of this, it cannot be said that there was any delay in the intimation to the Op Insurance Company. As far as for submitting the documents as mentioned in the letters Annexure R-1 to R-3 is concerned, we have perused these letters minutely and carefully, there is no such documents which was necessary to decide/settle the claim of the complainant as the complainant has specifically mentioned in his complaint that he had already submitted the untraced report under section 173 Cr.P.C. and NOC issued by the bank, which is evident from Annexure C-3. So, the defence of the Insurance Company on this point is also not tenable. It seems that insurance company lingering on the matter unnecessarily by putting illegal quarries as the attitude of the insurance company remains bad at the time of releasing any claim to the insured.

11.                   In the circumstances noted above and in view of the law referred above, we are of the considered view that the Op Insurance Company has wrongly withheld the claim of the complainant and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the OP Insurance Company is not tenable as the IRDA has clearly mentioned in the instructions that insurer cannot be rejected the claim amount for delay in intimation . The authorities (supra) tendered by the OP are not disputed but not helpful in the present case whereas on the other hand case law referred by the counsel for the complainant titled as Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram (Supra), Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar, (Supra) and Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma (Supra) are fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

12                    Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP Insurance Company to pay the insured amount of Rs. 32,219/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. It is also made clear that an amount of Rs. 32,219/- on account of theft of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02T-6000 will be released to the complainant subject to submitting the subrogation letter as well as indemnity bond in favour of OP Insurance Company. 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: 09.03.2016.

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER