Haryana

StateCommission

A/1054/2015

FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATBIR - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL AGGARWAL

16 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1054 of 2015

Date of Institution:        09.12.2015

Date of Decision :         16.03.2016

 

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at 3^rd Floor, Kailash Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-1110001 through its Legal Executive Khushbu Tyagi.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Satbir s/o Sh. Shiv Lal, Resident of House No.186, Gali No.5, New Biselwa Colony, Old Faridabad, also at VPO Suhra, District Jhajjar, Haryana.

                                      Respondent

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for appellant.

                             Respondent Satbir in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated October 15^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.164 of 2013. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“8.     Opposite Parties are directed to pay the insured amount with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of amount within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

 

2.      Satbir-complainant/respondent, got his tractor bearing registration No.HR-14H-2944, insured with Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/appellants, for the period March 21^st, 2011 to March 20^th, 2012, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-2. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the tractor was Rs.3,70,000/-. The tractor was stolen on November 18^th, 2011. F.I.R. No.276 (Exhibit C-4), was lodged in Police Station, Faridabad on November 19^th, 2011. The Insurance Company was also informed. The Police submitted untraced report and the same was accepted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, vide order dated October 9^th, 2012 (Exhibit C-5). The Insurance Company appointed investigator who submitted report Annexure R-2. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated March 2^nd, 2013 (Annexure R/21). Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

3.      The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the tractor was stolen on November 18^th, 2011 and intimation to the Insurance Company was given on January 25^th, 2012, that is, after 66 days and thus the complainant violated condition No.1 of the insurance policy.

4.      The plea of the Insurance Company that it was informed after 66 days is not tenable because to prove the same no evidence worth the name has been led. Even otherwise, in the 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 mentioned that genuine claims should not be rejected on account of delay in intimation, and that, the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on “sound logic” and “valid grounds”.  In this case, although the Insurance Company has pleaded that there was delay of 66 days in giving intimation but to prove the same no evidence worth the name has been led. The tractor was stolen on November 18^th, 2011 and F.I.R. (Exhibit C-4) was lodged. Once the Police have registered the F.I.R. and submitted untraced report, the question of breach of trust by will not affect the right of the complainant, who lost his tractor.

5.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymanshu International, (1979) 4 SCC 176, deprecated the practice often adopted by the Insurance Companies of denying claims on technical pleas, even though the claims lodged with them are otherwise well founded. It is unfortunate that the insurer takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The insurer should not rely upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants.

6.      In view of the above, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

7.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

8.      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 16.03.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL