BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.243 of 2015
Date of Instt. 04.06.2015
Date of Decision : 10.05.2016
Narinder Kumar aged about 54 years son of Mohan Lal R/o H.No.73/4, Mohalla Makhdoompura, Jalandhar now R/o SN-8, Shastri Nagar, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
Reliance General Insurance, 1st Floor, Rattan Towers, Civil Lines, Near Namdev Chowk, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
.........Opposite party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Anuj Mehta Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Vikas Gupta Adv., counsel for the OP.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant got his vehicle Eicher Tempo bearing registration No.PB-08-BD-6840 insured with the OP vide policy/ certificate No.2002542334000066 for the period from 13.3.2014 to 12.3.2015 with IDV of the said vehicle of Rs.3,24,000/-. Complainant submitted that on the intervening night of 10/11.1.2015, complainant parked his aforesaid insured vehicle at checking gate on service road, Maqsudan Sabzi Mandi Area, Jalandhar and in the morning of 11.1.2015, he found that some unknown person had stolen his aforesaid insured vehicle. The complainant reported the matter immediately to the police control room on 11.1.2015 through his mobile phone in this regard. The complainant produced report from Jalandhar police control room, on the basis of which FIR was registered at PS Division No.1, Jalandhar. OP was informed and claim was lodged by the complainant. OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that complainant intimated regarding the theft of the insured vehicle to the OP on 12.2.2015 i.e. after a lapse period of more than one month. OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant as complainant had informed the OP regarding theft of the insured vehicle immediately but the OP did not accept the claim without copy of FIR. So, when FIR was registered on 11.2.2015, the complainant lodged claim with the OP. There is no lapse on the part of the complainant but the OP wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to pay the insured amount of the vehicle i.e. Rs.3,24,000/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that theft of the insured vehicle has taken place on 11.1.2015 but the intimation of theft was given to the OP/insurer on 12.2.2015 i.e. after a delay period of 32 days which deprived the OP immediate opportunity to check and investigate the circumstances of theft and deprived the OP to take step immediate after the occurrence to properly investigate into the matter. FIR was registered on 11.2.2015. As per condition No.1 of the insurance policy, the insured shall give immediate notice in writing to the company regarding the loss of the vehicle. So, there is clear violation of the condition No.1 of the insurance policy. It has also been mentioned in circular dated 20.9.2011 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority that the insured is liable to intimate the insurer within the specified period regarding the theft of the vehicle unless the delay is due to unavoidable circumstances. OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant due to violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy. OP denied the other material averments of the complainant.
3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP7 and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got his vehicle Eicher Tempo bearing Registration No.PB-08-BD-6840 insured with the OP vide policy/certificate No.2002542334000066 Ex.C2 for the period from 13.3.2014 to 12.3.2015 with IDV of the said vehicle of Rs.3,24,000/-. Complainant submitted that on the intervening night of 10/11.1.2015, complainant parked his aforesaid insured vehicle at checker gate on service road, Maqsudan Sabzi Mandi Area, Jalandhar and in the morning of 11.1.2015, he found that some unknown person had stolen his aforesaid insured vehicle. The complainant reported the matter immediately to the police control room on 11.1.2015 through his mobile phone in this regard. The complainant produced report from Jalandhar police control room Ex.C3, on the basis of which FIR No.16 dated 11.2.2015 Ex.C4 was registered at PS Division No.1, Jalandhar. The police could not trace out the vehicle and they issued untraced certificate Ex.C6. OP was also informed and claim was lodged by the complainant vide claim form Ex.OP3 on 12.2.2015. The OP appointed surveyor who investigate the claim and ultimately the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 28.4.2015 Ex.OP5 on the ground that complainant intimated regarding the theft of the insured vehicle to the OP on 12.2.2015 i.e. after a lapse period of more than one month. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant as complainant had informed the OP regarding theft of the insured vehicle immediately but the OP did not accept the claim without copy of FIR. So, when FIR was registered on 11.2.2015, the complainant lodged claim with the OP vide claim form Ex.OP3 dated 12.2.2015. So, there is no lapse on the part of the complainant but the OP wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the OP is that theft of the insured vehicle has taken place on 11.1.2015 but the intimation of theft was given to the OP/insurer on 12.2.2015 i.e. after a delay period of 32 days which deprived the OP immediate opportunity to check and investigate the circumstances of theft and deprived the OP to take step immediately after the occurrence to properly investigate into the matter. FIR was registered on 11.2.2015. As per condition No.1 of the insurance policy, the insured shall give immediate notice in writing to the company regarding the loss of the vehicle. So, there is clear violation of the condition No.1 of the insurance policy. It has also been mentioned in circular dated 20.9.2011, issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority that the insured is liable to intimate the insurer within the specified period regarding the theft of the vehicle unless the delay is due to unavoidable circumstances. Learned counsel for the OP has submitted that OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant due to violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant. .
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got his vehicle Eicher Tempo bearing Registration No.PB-08-BD-6840 insured with the OP vide policy/ certificate No.2002542334000066 Ex.C2/OP1 for the period from 13.3.2014 to 12.3.2015. As per the complainant version, the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person in the intervening night of 10/11.1.2015 when the insured vehicle was parked on the outer service road, Maqsudan Sabzi Mandi Area, Jalandhar. The complainant reported the matter immediately on 11.1.2015 to the police control room through his mobile phone. Certificate in this regard is Ex.C3. However, the FIR in this case was registered on 11.2.2015 i.e. FIR No.16 at PS Division No.1, Jalandhar Ex.C4. The complainant has submitted that he also reported the matter to the OP on toll free number of the OP and after obtaining the copy of FIR complainant lodged claim with the OP through claim form Ex.OP3 dated 12.2.2015. No doubt the complainant has stated that he has given intimation to the OP regarding theft of insured vehicle in question on toll free number 1800-3009 of the OP but complainant could not produce any evidence in this regard that he gave intimation regarding theft of his insured vehicle to the OP on toll free number nor complainant has mentioned the date or month when he gave call to the toll free number of the OP regarding theft of his insured vehicle nor the complainant could place on record any evidence to prove that he gave intimation in writing to the OP regarding the theft of his insured vehicle except the claim form Ex.OP3 dated 12.2.2015 which prove that the complainant informed the OP regarding theft of his vehicle for the first time on 12.2.2015 i.e. after a lapse of a period of 32 days from the date of theft of vehicle which occurred on the intervening night of 10/11.1.2015. The OP has, therefore, been deprived of its right to properly investigate into the matter regarding the theft of the insured vehicle and could not make effort to trace out the same with the help of police. As per condition No.1 of the insurance policy Ex.OP5, the insured was bound to serve notice upon the OP in writing immediately regarding the accidental loss or damage/theft of the insured vehicle. Here in this case, the complainant did not give any notice in writing to the OP to intimate regarding theft of his insured vehicle, as such he has violated condition No.1 of the policy. It has been held by Hon'ble National Commission in its latest ruling in case Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jai Parkash 2016 (1) CLT 344 (NC) that mere intimating the police or lodging FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Insured was under contractual obligation to intimate the theft of the vehicle to the insurer immediately after the theft came to his knowledge. Insurer was held entitled to repudiate the claim on account of aforesaid default on the part of the insured. Same view has been taken by Hon'ble National Commission in case of Praveen Dalal Vs. Oriental Insurance Company & Ors 2014 (1) CPJ 546 and so many other cases.
9. In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant due to violation of condition No.1 of the policy by the complainant. Resultantly, we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh
10.05.2016 Member Member President
