Punjab

Sangrur

CC/67/2015

Bhinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundaram - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Gurdarshan Singh

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  67

                                                Instituted on:    09.02.2015

                                                Decided on:       03.08.2015

 

Bhinder Singh aged about 35 years son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Village Raisar Patiala, Tehsil and District Barnala.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 21, Atullos Road, Chennai-600 002 through its Manager.

2.     Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.136, Sector 44, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Gurdarshan Singh, Adv.

For Opposite parties :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

 

1.             Shri Bhinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that  the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting his Accent car  bearing registration number PB-06-G-0027 insured from OP number 1 under cover note number VP00113203000100 for the period from 10.01.2009 to 09.01.2010.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that the car in question was stolen on 27.11.2009 when the same was parked near Sunrise Palace, Sangrur, of which FIR number 352 dated 2.12.2009 was registered in the police station Sangrur and information of which was also given to the OPs.  The police investigated the case and untraced report was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur which was accepted vide orders dated 15.6.2010.  It is further stated that the complainant has also submitted his claim with the Ops and also submitted the untraced report, but the claim was not paid despite issuance of legal notice upon the Ops on 11.8.2011 through his counsel. The claim was not paid despite his best efforts, as such, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum Barnala vide complaint number 330 dated 9.9.2011 which was allowed vide orders dated 15.2.2012. It is further averred that against that order dated 15.2.2012, the OPs went in appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh, whereby the complaint was dismissed for want of jurisdiction with liberty to the complainant to file the same before the District Forum having the jurisdiction.

 

3              In reply,  objections have been taken on the grounds that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts, that the complainant for the first time had taken private car package policy, that the complainant laid a belated claim on 4.1.2010 whereas the above said vehicle was stolen on 27.11.2009. It is further stated that the complainant belatedly informed the police about the theft on 2.12.2009 after a delay of five days and a FIR was registered on that date.  It is further stated that the complainant very casually intimated about the theft after a lapse of 37 days to the Ops and after five days to the police.  It is further stated that as per the policy terms and conditions, the insured was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident and delay in intimation deprives the insurance company or its legitimate right to get inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle.  It is stated further that the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-3 copy of FIR, Ex.C-4 copy of police report dated 22.5.2010, Ex.C-5 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-6 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-7 copy of motor insurance claim form, Ex.C-8 copy of order dated 15.6.2010 and Ex.C-9 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of policy schedule and terms and conditions, Ex.OP-2 copy of claim form, Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-11 copies of letters and closed evidence.

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the vehicle bearing registration number PB-06-G-0027 was insured with the OPs for the period from 10.01.2009 to 09.01.2010 and it is also not in dispute that the said vehicle in question was stolen on 27.11.2009 when the same was parked near Sunrise Palace, Sangrur, of which intimation was given to the police immediately, but the police registered the FIR number 352 dated  02.12.2009 after a period of five days, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended further that the complainant intimated the OPs about the theft of the vehicle immediately on occurrence.  To support such allegations of the complainant in the complaint, he has also produced on record his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-9.  Ex.C-8 is the copy of untraced report duly accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the OPs have repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant did not lodge the FIR with the police immediately after the theft of the car, as the car was stolen on 27.11.2009 and FIR was only registered on 2.12.2009 after a lapse of a period of five days and the Ops were intimated only on 4.1.2010 after a lapse of 37 days about the theft of the vehicle. 

 

8.             In the present case, the question for determination before us is whether the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant lodged the FIR with the police after a period of five days of occurrence of theft of the car and the Ops were informed after a lapse of 37 days.

 

9.             It is on the record that the car in question was stolen at about 9.00 PM on the night of 27.11.2009 when the same was parked near Sunrise Palace, Sangrur, where the complainant went to attend the marriage.  It is obvious that he tried to find out the vehicle in question here and there and went to the police to get the FIR registered, but the police only registered the FIR number 352 on 2.12.2009.  Further the complainant can intimate the police to lodge the FIR, but it is the police who has to lodge the FIR in their records.  Moreover, it is well proved on record that the car in question was stolen on 27.11.2009, but the same was not found despite best efforts of the complainant.  Ex.OP-1 is the copy of certificate of insurance and policy schedule, which shows that the vehicle in question was insured for Rs.4,00,000/- and requisite premium of Rs.12,513/- was charged by the Ops for the insurance of the vehicle in question. The learned counsel for the OPs has drawn our attention towards the condition number 1, wherein it has been mentioned that 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.  The learned counsel for the Ops has further contended that in the present case the complainant lodge FIR with the police after a period of five days of occurrence.  It is an admitted fact on record that the insured vehicle in question was stolen on 27.11.2009 and the police registered the FIR only on 2.12.2009, the fact remains that the vehicle was stolen and the complainant suffered loss.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that the intimation of theft of the vehicle was given by the complainant to the OPs only on 4.1.2010, but the OPs have not produced on record any documentary evidence to prove such a contention, as such we are unable to accept this allegation of the OPs.  It is worth mentioning here that since the complainant lodged the FIR with the police and made known to the police as well as the OPs about the theft of the vehicle, nothing has prevented the Ops from investigating about the theft of the vehicle in question. 

 

10.           The learned counsel for the OPs has cited Kulwant Singh versus The Managing Director, United India Insurance co. Ltd. and others 2015(1) CLT 106 (NC), wherein it has been held that delay of three days in informing the police about the theft of the vehicle is fatal as within three days the vehicle could have been driven long distance even across the border of the country or could have been dismantled and sold to the scrap dealer and further held that the complainant acted in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  But, in the case in hand, the complainant has alleged that he intimated the police as well as the opposite parties immediately and it is the police only who has to register the FIR and it is not in the hands of the complainant to get registered the FIR in the records of the police.  Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society versus M. Lalitha and others I (2004) CPJ1 (SC) has widely discussed and has held that the main objective of the Consumer Protection Act,1986  is to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism, through which cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal is made available to consumers.  Further reliance can also be placed  on Jagdish Parshad vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013(3) CLT 136 (NC) to support the case of the complainant.  The Ops have denied the rightful claim of the complainant despite charging of the premium from the complainant even for causing of theft of the vehicle, which is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

11.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 15.2.2012 (the date of filing of first complaint before District Forum Barnala) till realisation in full. OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.             

 

12.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 3, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member