Haryana

StateCommission

A/396/2015

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJEEV KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.396 of 2015

Date of Institution: 30.04.2015                                                              Date of Decision: 10.12.2015

 

1.Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No./155, Mugal Canal, Karnal.

2.Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,  Cross Road, Next to Royal Industrial Estate Vodall (w) Mumbai through Sh.Amit Chawla Deputy Manager RGI SCO No.145-146, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

…..Appellants

Versus

 

Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh.Hari Kishan r/o Gali No.3 Anand Vihar Colony, Goghripur Fatak, karnal

                                      …..Respondent

 

Shree Ram Finance Co. through its Manager at Namestey Chowk Karnal.

…..Performa Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate counsel for appellants.

                             Ms.Simarpreet Kaur, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged by the complainant that he got his vehicle bearing registration No.HR-64-0891 insured from opposite party (O.P.) No.2 on 06.04.2009 (as mentioned in complaint) for insured declared value (IDV) of Rs.2,25,000/-.  The policy was valid from 06.04.2009 to 05.04.2010.  Unfortunately the vehicle was stolen by some unknown person in the month of March 2009 (as mentioned in para No.2 of the complaint) when it was parked at rich Dhaba/Hotel.  The matter was immediately reported to O.P.No.1 as well as O.P.No.2 and the police.  FIR was registered on 23.03.2010 at police station (P.S.) Gharaunda as per orders of the court under section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) 1973.  Despite several notices  O.P.No.2 did not pay any amount hence the complaint.

2.      O.P.No.1 filed separate reply and O.P.Nos.2 and 3 filed  joint reply controverting averments of the complainant.  It was alleged by O.P.No.1 that as per complainant the vehicle was insured with O.P.Nos.2 and 3 and it was not concerned with this incident.  It only provided financial assistance to purchase the vehicle. 

3.      It was alleged by O.P.Nos.2 and 3 that complainant informed them about this theft on 07.03.2011 after delay of 359 days whereas he was supposed to give information “immediately” as per terms and conditions of insurance policy.  There was inordinate delay of 10 days in lodging FIR at the P.S. Gharaunda.  His claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 06.06.2011. Objections about estopple, locus standi, cause of action, territorial jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District Forum”)  ordered as under:-

“Therefore, in view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the O.Ps No.2 and 3 to make the payment of 75% of the  admissible claim to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 21.09.2010 till its actual realization.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2299/- towards legal fee and the litigation expenses.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellants-O.P.No.2 and 3 have preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the matter was immediately reported to police after incident and this fact was also brought to the notice of appellants-O.Ps. at that very time. There is no delay in giving information, so his claim was wrongly repudiated. Even if there is delay in lodging of FIR and giving information, the claim cannot be repudiated  in toto and must have  settled on non-standard basis as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Amalendu Sahu Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, 2010 CTJ 485 (Supreme Court) (CP). 

8.      This argument is devoid of any force.  The complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that information was given to the police or the O.Ps. immediately.  From the perusal of copy of FIR Ex.C-5 it is clear that the same was lodged on 23.03.2010.  It appears that the court has been used to get this case registered just to create evidence.  It has no where come on the file that he ever moved an application before the police station.  Further there is no plausible explanation about delay of 359 days in giving information to insurance company.  As per terms and conditions of policy he was supposed to inform immediately. Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission have opined about ‘immediately’ and when the matter should be reported to the insurance company.  Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Harcharan Rai Chandan Lal, JT 2004 (8) SC 8 that word ‘immediately’ means the information is to be given to them without any loss of time. Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the word ‘immediately’ giving reference of so many dictionaries.  Hon’ble Supreme Court has also opined in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Harcharan Rai Chandan Lal,  (supra) that terms of policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or substracted from the same.  Hon’ble National Commission also opined in NIA Vs.Trilochan  Jane, first appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2009, Satpal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 518 2013 (3) that if there is inordinate delay in giving information to the company, without any explanation, the  claim can be repudiated by the company.  In Satpal case (supra) there was 30

days delay in giving information to the insurance company. Hon’ble National Commission has recently opined in case law captioned as  Sarfarjudeen Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2015 CPJ 748 (NC) that  if there is delay in giving information about theft then the complaint is to be dismissed.  In that case there was delay of only four days in lodging FIR and delay of one month in giving information to insurance company, whereas in the present case the FIR was lodged after 10 days and information was given to insurance company after 359 days.  This point is also discussed by Hon’ble National Commission in HDFC ERGO General insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagchand Saini 1 (2015) CPJ 206 (NC) and Shriram General Insurance co. Ltd. Vs. Mahender Jat 1 (2015) CPJ 74 (NC).

9.      The complainant has miserably failed to explain the delay of 359 days in information given to the insurance company. Complainant has not placed any evidence on the file showing that he ever approached insurance company.  Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that he was not entitled for compensation and insurance company rightly repudiated his claim.

10.    The respondent cannot derive any benefit from the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court  expressed in Amalendu Sahu Vs.Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. case (supra) because in that case the question of use of vehicle was involved and not delay in giving information.  Learned District forum fell in error while allowing the complaint.

11.    Resultantly, impugned order dated 19.02.2015 is set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

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

 

December 10th, 2015             Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                        Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.