Haryana

Jind

307/12

Raj Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance GIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Deepak Sachdeva

13 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 307 of 2012
   Date of Institution: 11.10.2012
   Date of final order: 16.5.2016

Rajpal Singh s/o Dalip Singh r/o village Kelwa, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Reliance General Insurance Company Civil road near D park Rohtak 124001 through its Branch Manager.
                                                          …..Opposite party.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Deepak Sachdeva Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party.
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No. HR64-3458 and the same was got insured with the opposite party vide policy No.2004702334001840. It is alleged that on 13.3.2011 he had come to Jind to meet with his friend Gulshan Kumar and vehicle was parked near the house of his friend during the night but next morning the vehicle was found stolen. The complaint was lodged in P.S. City Jind vide FIR No.181 dated 24.3.2011 under section 379 IPC and the police has filed untraced report in the court of Illaqua Magistrate on 
            Rajpal Singh Vs. RGIC
                  …2…
24.9.2011.The complainant informed the opposite party regarding the stolen of his vehicle and submitted all the necessary documents with the opposite party.  The opposite party has failed to settle the claim  so far to the complainant on account of stolen of his vehicle and opposite party is avoiding the payment of  claim amount. The opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 15.9.2011.Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed to pay the policy benefits along with interest @ 18% p.a. as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite party has appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no  cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. On merits, it is contended that the claim lodged by the complainant is a very belated state. The complainant left his vehicle unattended in an isolated street for a period of whole night and alleged theft is the result of his own negligence and carelessness.  The  above said vehicle was stolen on 14.3.2011 but the complainant was informed with the company on 27.5.2011 i.e. after a delay of 74 days. It is further alleged that the complainant has also reported the matter to the police on 24.3.2011 i.e. after a delay of 10 days and the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance 
            Rajpal Singh Vs. RGIC
                  …3…
policy. All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost is prayed for. 
3.     In  evidence, the complainant has produced the copy of letter dated 24.9.2011 Ex. C-1,  copy of order dated 18.11.2011 Ex. C-2, copy of letter dated 4.10.2011 Ex. C-3, copy of statement of Raj Pal Ex. C-4, copy of FIR Ex. C-5, copy of policy schedule Ex. C-6, copy of RC Ex. C-7, copy of form 38 Ex. C-8, copy of letter dated 15.9.2011 Ex. C-9, copy of identity card Ex. C-10 and affidavit of complainant Ex. C-11 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, opposite party has produced the affidavit of Sh. Abhilesh Chander Ex. OP-1, copy of letter dated 15.9.2011 Ex. OP-2, copy  of letter dated 20.8.2011 Ex. OP-3, copy of  courier  Ex. OP-4, copy of investigation report Ex. OP-5, copy of statement of Rajpal Singh Ex. OP-6, copy of statement of Gulshan Kumar Ex. OP-7, copy of statement of Bal Krishan Ex. OP-8, copy of statement of Kala Mistri Ex. OP-9, copy of statement of Ram Khilawan Ex. OP-10, copy of driving licence Ex. OP-11, copy of document Ex. OP-12, copy of letter dated 30.8.2011 Ex. OP-13, copy of FIR Ex. OP-14, copy of motor claim form Ex. OP-15, copy of policy schedule Ex. OP-16 and copy of instruction Ex. OP-17 and closed the evidence.  
4.    We have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as perused the record placed on file. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for 
            Rajpal Singh Vs. RGIC
                  …4…
the opposite party reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal. 
5.    Admittedly, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party vide policy No. 2004702334001840  and the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 14.3.2011 during the subsistence of the policy and claim lodged by the complainant was not honoured by the opposite party whereas it is case of the opposite party that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy as the theft had taken place on 14.3.2011 and FIR was lodged on 24.3.2011 i.e. after  a delay of 10 days. Even the intimation was given to the opposite party after a gap of 74 days. As the FIR has been lodged after 10 days and intimation was given after 74 days, hence the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Ld. Counsel of opposite party referred the case law titled as Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil, 2015 (3) CLT page 90 (N.C) and another case law titled as H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagchand Saini, 1 (2015) CPJ page 206 (N.C) have weight as delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft would be violation of condition of the policy as it deprives insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to commission of theft and to help in tracing the vehicle. Moreover, in the policy, it has been specifically mentioned that claim for theft of the vehicle not payable if theft not reported to the company within 48 hours of its occurrence. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Om Parkash Vs. National Insurance 
            Rajpal Singh Vs. RGIC
                  …5…
Company Ltd. 2012 (III) CPJ page 59 has observed that insurance-theft of vehicle-delay in intimation-claim repudiated-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission allowed appeal-Hence revision-terms and conditions of insurance policy are required to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity-Even delay of few days in  not intimating insurance company about incident of theft is fatal-insured loses its right to be indemnified when he himself is not vigilant about his rights and his obligations in regarding to compliance of terms and conditions of policy-impugned order upheld.
6.    Further in the case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane First Appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 has observed 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 insurers of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle. 

            Rajpal Singh Vs. RGIC
                  …6…
7.    Further in case titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil (NC) has observed that insurance claim-theft of car insured intimated the insurer regarding theft of his car after 39 days of the accident-held-insured has violated the mandatory terms and  conditions of the insurance policy-revision petition allowed. 
8.    In the present case, it is admitted fact that vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and the same was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy and the FIR was registered on 24.3.2011 i.e. after delay of 10 days but the complainant has not mentioned in his complaint when information was given to the 
opposite party. However, he has written in his complaint that the information was given to the opposite party immediately but this plea is not supported by the credible evidence. It reveals that the intimation was given to the insurance company after a delay of 74 days and FIR was lodged after a delay of 10 days. On this point reliance can be placed on case law titled as Surender Vs. National Insurance Co. Limited 1 (2013) CPJ page 741 National Commission because in that case the vehicle was stolen on 20.5.2008 and FIR was lodged on the same day but it has been specifically mentioned that it was obligatory on the part of complainant to intimate about the theft to the Insurance Company immediately. 
9.    Besides this we have perused the document Ex. OP-6 which is statement Sh. Rajpal Singh complainant made before the  investigator alleging therein that he had sold the jeep having registration bearing 
            Rajpal Singh Vs. RGIC
                  …7…
No.HR64-3458 in the month of January, 2011 to Sh. Gulshan Kumar s/o Sh. Kewal Krishan. Apart this from the perusal of document Ex. OP-12, Ex. OP-13 and Ex. OP-15 which are claim forms, wherein it is clearly shows that the said forms were submitted by Sh. Gulshan Kumar to the insurance company. Whereas we are of the view that Gulshan Kumar has no insurable interest with the opposite party-company and has no locus-standi to submit the claim form. 
10.    In view of the above discussion, We are of the considered view that complainant has intimated the opposite party after a gap of  74 days which is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Also 
the FIR has been lodged after a delay of 10 days.  Ld. Counsel for the opposite party referred the terms and conditions mentioned in the Insurance Policy. Hence, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the judgments mentioned (supra) and factual position of this case, there is violation of terms and conditions of policy and opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim  of the complainant. The authorities (supra) tendered by the opposite party is fully applicable in the present case. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and  the present complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their own expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 16.5.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

                   Rajpal Singh Vs. RGIC
                
Present:  Sh. Deepak Sachdeva Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party.
         
          Arguments heard. To come up on 16.5.2016 for orders.

                                          President,
        Member               Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 13.5.2016

Present:  Sh. Deepak Sachdeva Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv. for opposite party.
         
          Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member               Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 16.5.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

         Ram Kumar Vs. UHBVNL etc.

Present: Sh. J.S. Dhull Adv.  for DH.
      Sh. H.S. Lather Adv. for JDs.
      This Forum has passed the order on 10.10.2012 and opposite parties were directed to provide the tube-well connection to the complainant on the basis of his turn. Inspite of the order, the respondents have not compliance the order of this Forum. Ultimately complainant has filed the execution application under section 27 for compliance of the respondent/SDO for appearance and stated with the statement that he will give the connection to the complainant within 7 days. After that he gave the copy of Service Connection Order dated 23.10.2013, the connection has been released to the complainant.  But the DH stated that  the Service Connection Order is false one, to seek the exact position of the tube-well whether tube-well in question is running on the spot or not. This Forum has sent the Local Commissioner Sh. Sushil Sharma Adv.  he gave the report that connection of tube-well has been connected today itself i.e. 29.10.2013 in the presence of the Local Commissioner. Now complainant grievances is there the SDO has given the Service Connection Order is false one in view of the report of the Local Commissioner. The connection was connected on 29.10.2013 it means the Connection Order has not been released. In this way, the SDO failed to compliance the order of this Forum within stipulated period,  it is necessary to send the show cause notice to the SDO to explain the position why he has placed on the record Service Connection Order dated 23.10.2013 whenever connection was released on 29.10.2013 as per Local Commission report. The SDO is directed to come present personally and explain the position. Show cause notice be issued  to the SDO for this purpose. Now to come up on 1.6.2016 for presence of SDO as well as reply of the show cause notice. 

                                President,
        Member                      Member                 DCDRF, Jind
                                10.5.2016

        No._______  Dated:________
From:

        President,
        District Consumer Disputes
        Redressal Forum, Jind.
To

        The SDO,
        UHBVNL Sub Division, Julana.

Sub:        Show cause Notice in case titled Ram Kumar Vs. UHBVNL etc.
        fixed for 1.6.2016.
Memo:

        In the above noted case from the perusal of the case file it reveals that the connection of the DH was released on 29.10.2013 whereas you have placed on record service connection order dated 23.10.2013. You are hereby directed to appear in person on 1.6.2016 to explain the factual position issuance of service connection order dated 23.10.2013 as well as restoration of the electricity supply to the tube-well of the complainant on 29.10.2013. 

                                    President,
                                District Consumer Disputes
                                Redressal Forum, Jind.