RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 1557 OF 2015
(Against the judgment/order dated 02-07-2015 in Complaint
Case No. 150/2013 of the District Consumer Forum-II, Moradabad)
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited
E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura
Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302022
Branch Office 16, Chintal House
Station Road, Lucknow
Through its Manager
...Appellant
V/s
Sageer, S/o Rais
R/o Mohalla Gher Pipalsana
City and District Rampur
...Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Satya Prakash Pandey, Advocate.
Dated : 23-11-2016
JUDGMENT
PER MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
Vide impugned order dated 02-07-2015 passed in Complaint No. 150/2013 Sageer V/s Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and another, the District Consumer Forum-II, Moradabad has ordered opposite parties to pay to the complainant insured amount of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till the date of actual payment. The District Consumer Forum has further ordered opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.2,500/- as cost of the case.
Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum, the opposite parties of the complaint have filed this appeal before State Commission under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
:2:
Learned Counsel Sri Dinesh Kumar appeared for appellant.
Learned Counsel Sri Satya Prakash Pandey appeared for respondent.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is against law and evidence.
It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that complaint is time barred.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the incident of theft is alleged to have taken place in intervening night of 23/24 of August, 2011 whereas the intimation of incident has been given to the appellant Insurance Company by the complainant on 10-09-2011 after 18 days delay. As such, the respondent/complainant has not complied Condition-1 of the policy. Therefore, the appellant Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of complainant/respondent. The District Consumer Forum has committed error in accepting claim of the complainant/respondent.
Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has opposed appeal and contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is in accordance with law as well as evidence. He has further contended that the claim cannot be repudiated merely on the ground of delayed intimation.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble National Commission rendered in Revision Petition No. 3269/2014 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited V/s Anand Singh whereas learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s. Modern Insulators Limited V/s The Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in I(2000) CPJ 1 (SC).
We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused case laws referred by the parties.
After having gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as memo of appeal it appears that the insurance policy as well as alleged incident of theft is not disputed. The appellant Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of
:3:
the complainant/respondent merely on the ground of delayed intimation. The District Consumer Forum has considered this issue at length. After having gone through Circular of IRDA dated 20-09-2011 and various pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as pronouncement of Hon’ble National Commission, the District Consumer Forum has concluded that the repudiation of complainant’s claim by the appellant Insurance Company on the ground of delayed intimation is not justified and the appellant Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service by repudiating claim of the complainant.
The Hon’ble National Commission in its judgment rendered in above Revision No. 3269/2014 has considered the above circular of IRDA and has held as under:-
“The circular provides that the condition regarding giving intimation of loss to the insurer within stipulated period should not prevent the settlement of genuine claims particularly when there is a delay of intimation or any submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.”
Perusal of complaint shows that in paragraph 3 of the complaint it has been averred by respondent/complainant that he gave information of incident to financier through Toll Free Number and became busy with police in search of stolen truck but the truck could not be traced. Then he gave information at the Branch Office of appellant Insurance Company at Moradabad on 30-08-2011. Indisputably the respondent/complainant has lodged F.I.R. of alleged incident of robbery/theft in police station concerned on 24-08-2011 at 4.20 p.m. without delay and as stated in complaint after lodging F.I.R. the complainant was busy with police in search of his stolen vehicle. When the vehicle was not traced then he gave information of incident to Branch Office appellant at Mordabad on 30-08-2011. The complainant has supported the version of complaint with affidavit and there is no reasonable ground to disbelieve version of complainant rather it appears natural for the complainant to take steps to search his stolen truck first and to intimate Insurance Company when the truck could not be recovered.
In written statement the appellant Insurance Company has accepted the averment of paragraph 3 of complaint regarding lodging of F.I.R. and has denied rest of its contents. In written statement the Insurance Company has not specifically denied that no intimation was given to Moradabad Branch Office
:4:
by the complainant on 30-08-2011.
The facts mentioned above show that the appellant Insurance Company has been intimated by complainant/respondent about theft within six days of the incident and the cause of delay appears reasonable and natural. As such, the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission rendered in above revision petition is not helpful to the appellant Insurance Company on the facts of the present case.
Perusal of impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum shows that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is exhaustive and the District Consumer Forum has examined all aspects of the case. The conclusion drawn and finding recorded by the District Consumer Forum cannot be said to be against law and evidence.
Indisputably the truck was insured with the appellant Insurance Company for Rs.12,00,000/-.
In view of above we find no sufficient ground for interference in the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum. Th appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
The amount deposited by appellant Insurance Company under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in this appeal shall be remitted to the District Consumer Forum concerned alongwith interest accrued, if any, for making disposal in accordance with law.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
( SMT. BAL KUMARI )
MEMBER
Pnt.
