Haryana

StateCommission

A/64/2015

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANDEEP KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.BASHAMBOO

09 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     64 of 2015

Date of Institution:   19.01.2015

Date of Decision :    09.12.2015

 

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, through its authorized signatory/manager, Gurgaon, represented through Shri G. Vinay Parkash, Legal Manager of Subramanian Building, II Floor No.1, Club House Road, Annasalai, Chennai – 6000002.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

1.      Sandeep Kumar s/o Sh. Krishan Kumar, Resident of Gopal Colony, near Kabri Phatak, Panipat, Tehsil and District Panipat.

                                      Respondent/complainant

2.      Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Krishan Lal, Resident of Village Barana, Tehsil and District Panipat, agent of appellant/Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited.

Performa Respondent/Opposite Party No.2 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri P.K. Rohilla, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Respondent No.2 performa party.

                  

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

 

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) – Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated 23^rd December, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.25 of 2014.

2.      Sandeep Kumar-complainant/respondent No.1, purchased a new tractor of Swaraj-744 make, bearing Chassis No.WACS45622158420, Engine No.431025SRE06520. He got it insured with the Insurance Company for the period from June 9^th, 2012 to June 8^th, 2013. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the tractor was Rs.5,27,250/-.

3.      On October, 27^th, 2012, the tractor was snatched by three persons in the area of Samalkha. F.I.R. No.693 (Exhibit C-3) under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged in Police Station Samalkha on the same day. The Insurance Company was informed. The Police submitted untraced report (Annexure-A) and the same was accepted by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, vide order dated 5^th July, 2013 (Annexure C-3). The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the insured amount to the complainant. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.      The Insurance Company contested complaint by filing reply denying its liability to pay the insured amount on the ground that there was delay of 37 days in giving information and that the tractor was not registered with the Registering Authority. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

5.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum accepted complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.5,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, that there was delay of 37 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company and thus violated condition No.1 of the policy. Secondly, that the tractor was not registered with the Registering Authority, which was in violation of 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant.

7.      The first plea raised is that there was delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company failed to prove that there was delay of 37 days in giving intimation because no cogent evidence has been led to prove the same.  Otherwise too, reference be made to Circular Ref: IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/ CIR/ 216/ 09/ 2011 dated September 20^th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short ‘IRDA’). It has been specifically mentioned by IRDA that there may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim of the claimant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine.  The operative part of the circular reads as under:-

“The Authority has been receiving several complaints that claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission of intimation and documents.

The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.”

8.      In view of above, the contention is repelled.

9.      Coming now to the second contention with respect to non-registration of the tractor with the Registering Authority, Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), held as under:-

“12.  In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen.  In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane.  The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis.  The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.” 

10.    In Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2010 CTJ 485 (Supreme Court), referring to the principle laid down in Nitin Khandelwal’s case (Supra), Hon’ble Apex Court held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the insurance claim in toto and the insurer is liable to pay 75% of the admissible claim.

11.    Indisputably, the tractor was comprehensively insured with the Insurance Company from June 9^th, 2012 to June 8^th, 2013 for Rs.5,27,250/-. It is also not in dispute that it was snatched on October 27^th, 2012. F.I.R. (Exhibit C-3) was lodged with the Police and the Insurance Company was informed. This being so, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor on non-standard basis, that is, to the extent of 75% of the IDV.  The IDV of the tractor was Rs.5,27,250/-.  By calculation, 75% of Rs.5,27,250/-, comes to Rs.3,95,437/-. So, it is ordered that the Insurance Company shall pay Rs.3,95,437/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realisation. The cost of litigation is quantified at Rs.2200/-.

12.    The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 09.12.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL