Haryana

StateCommission

A/877/2015

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATISH - Opp.Party(s)

RAM AVTAR

01 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.877 of 2015

Date of Institution: 14.10.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 01.12.2016

 

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regd. & Head Office: Oriental House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi now through its Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Satish S/o Randhir Singh, R/o VPO Sisana, tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat.

                                      …..Respondent

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

                             Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                               

 

Present:              Mr.Ram Avtar, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged by the complainant that he got his truck bearing registration No. HR-46B-6126 insured from opposite party (O.P.). Insurance was valid from  04.07.2008 to 03.07.2009. On 22.09.2008 truck was parked near the house of relative  at village Bohar by his brother.  The vehicle was duly locked, but, in the morning of 23.08.2008 vehicle was found missing. He tried to find the same here and there but, the same could not be traced out. Information was given to police at No.100. FIR was lodged on 31.08.2008 as per statement of his brother Pawan Kumar.  Information about this theft was given to registration authority on 06.04.2009.  He submitted claim with O.P., but, was repudiated on 09.05.2013 without any sufficient cause.

2.      O.P.-appellant filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that there was inordinate delay in lodging FIR and giving information to it.  FIR was lodged after eight days and information was given to it after 16 days  i.e. on 08.09.2008. As per terms and conditions of insurance policy, complainant was supposed to give information to police as well as insurance company immediately. He failed to explain about delay in giving information or any proof about giving intimation at number 100.  When the claim was lodged by complainant, letters dated 02.02.2010, 09.03.2010, 15.04.2010 and 27.04.2010 were written to him to complete the formalities, but, to no result. Ultimately his file was closed as ‘no claim’.  Objections about limitation etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 17.07.2015 and directed as under:-

“xxx we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.12,10,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs. Two thousands) for deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that    theft was not doubted by the surveyor appointed by the O.P.-appellant. He immediately gave information to police, but, FIR was registered on 31.08.2008. So delay is not fatal in this case and learned District forum rightly granted compensation. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision petition No.629 of 2015 titled as New India Assurance co. Ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Ors, decided on 03.08.2015 and opinion of this Commission in first appeal No.688 of 2015 titled as United Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajbir decided on 14.01.2016.

7.      This argument is of no avail.  Respondent-complainant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws because the facts of those cases are altogether different.  In New India Assurance co. Ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Kaur & Ors case (supra)  there was no condition in the insurance company that notice will be given to insurance company immediately in case of loss which was discussed by Hon’ble National Commission.  In United Insurance Vs. Rajbir (supra) case FIR was lodged  on the same day when the vehicle was stolen and there was no delay. Had it been so in this case  then it  would have been a different matter. In the present case it was mentioned in the conditions that the insured shall give notice immediately to the police about theft, major loss or criminal Act, etc., which he has not done.  Hon’ble National Commission has clearly opined in National Bulk Handling Corporation Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2016 (3) CLT 299, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs.Trilochan Jane  and Kulwant singh Vs. in revision petition No.3320 of 2014 titled as MD United India Insurance Co. decided on 15.09.2014 and Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahender Jat 2015 (1) CLT (case laws law cited by the appellant counsel) that if there is any delay in giving intimation then the same is fatal.  In National Bulk’s case (supra) it was specifically opined by Hon’ble National Commission that circular dated 20.09.2011 of IRDA is advisory in nature and not mandatory.  It is opined therein that if delay in intimating loss to the insurer is condoned in every case in a mechanical manner, that would defeat the very purpose behind incorporating the requirement of prompt notice to the insurer.  Word ‘immediately’ is discussed by Hon’ble National Commission in  NIA Vs. Trilochan Jane’s case (supra). So keeping in view the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in case laws cited by the learned counsel for the appellant impugned order cannot be sustained. Resultantly impugned order dated 17.07.2015 is set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

December 01st, 2016   Urvashi Agnihotri                                    R.K.Bishnoi,                                                      Member                                                          Judicial Member                                                 Addl. Bench                                            Addl.Bench              

S.K.