Haryana

StateCommission

A/771/2015

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATYA PRAKASH - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.NAHAR

26 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.771 of 2015

Date of Institution: 10.09.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 26.05.2016

 

The New India Insurance Company Limited, Delhi road, Model town, Rohtak through its divisional/Branch Manager.

Now through its authorized signatory, Tarsem Chand, Dy. Manager and power of attorney holder of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Regional Office Chandigarh, SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A Chandigarh.

….. Appellant

Versus

 

Satya Parkash S/oSh.Balwant Singh R/o H.No.1474/15, Kailash Colony, Rohtak.

                                      …..Respondent

 

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

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Shri J.P.Nahar, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Sandeep Singhal, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

It is alleged by the complainant that he got his vehicle bearing registration No.HR-12-N-6655 insured for Rs.5,04,000/- which was valid from 12.08.2011 to 11.08.2012. On 20.08.2011 his family went to Gugameri and after parking properly locked the same.  During the intervening night of 20/21.08.2011 at about 12.30 A.M. when they came back vehicle was found missing.  His brother informed the police on that very night and oral information was given to the company on the next day.  Police officials demanded an affidavit duly attested from Tehsildar of the locality, but, there were holidays of two days and that is why the affidavit was prepared on 23.08.2011 and was submitted with the police on 24.08.2011.  Sumer Singh Assistant Manager of company was informed on 23.08.2011 and he demanded copy of FIR.  Thereafter he again went to P.S. Gugameri  and after getting copy of FIR submitted all the documents with the opposite party (O.P.).  On 19.03.2012 he moved an application for disbursement of claim, but, no reply was given by the O.P.  Letter dated 01.03.2012 was also sent by police authority  District Hanumangarh to O.P.  On 30.03.2012 he again moved an application.  After some days he received letter dated 29.03.2012 vide which his claim was repudiated on the ground of delay in information to police and intimation to insurance company, whereas he immediately gave information.  As per information supplied on the basis of applications dated 20.04.2012 and 23.08.2012, it is clear that information was given to the police there and then.  These documents were clearly showing that there was no delay on his part.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting  his averments and  alleged  that  vehicle was left unattended  during  night  which  facilitated  theft.  FIR was lodged on 02.11.2011 whereas theft took place on 20.08.2011 and intimation was given to it on 03.11.2011.  There was inordinate delay in giving information which was breach of condition of insurance policy.  Police officials did not ask for an affidavit attested by Tehsildar of locality. Complainant did not inform Sumer Singh on 23.08.2011 as alleged by him. He did not move an application on 19.03.2012 before insurance company and on 01.03.2012 before the police.  His averments about visit at Police station etc. were altogether wrong. As he violated terms and conditions of insurance policy so his claim was rightly repudiated

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (In Short “District Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 04.08.2015 and directed as under:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite party shall pay the total value of vehicle i.e. Rs.504000/- (Rupees five lac four thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 29.08.2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form NO.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc. to the  opposite party failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

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

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that  just after the theft on 20.08.2011 Manoj Kumar approached police to register FIR, but, was asked to bring affidavit attested by the Executive Magistrate of the area.  Thereafter Manoj Kumar obtained affidavit, copy of which is Ex.C-8.  As there was  holiday of two days, so it was attested on 23.08.2011.  Thereafter, he moved application Ex.C-7 dated 24.08.2011 before police alongwith affidavit and SHO, P.S.Gugameri registered FIR. It shows that there was no delay in  lodging F.I.R.  It is also mentioned in Ex.C-17 that report was given on 24.08.2011 whereas case was registered on 02.11.2011. Oral information was given to the insurance company on 21.08.2011 and on 23.08.2011 information was sent to Sumer Singh Assistant Manager, but, he asked to bring copy of FIR, so there was no delay in information.  He placed reliance upon the opinion of this Commission  expressed in Shriram General Insurance company limited vs Rajesh Kumar, 2014(2) CLT 390.

7.      On the other hand learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently argued that from the perusal of FIR Ex.R-4, it is clear that the same was lodged on 02.11.2011, whereas theft took place during the intervening night of 20/21.08.2011.  Information was given to company on 03.11.2011. There was inordinate delay in giving information and it is clear violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.  In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in  revision petition No.2341 of 2012 titled as Sagar Kumar vs United India Insurance company Ltd. decided on 03.03.2014 and in Revision Petition No.4749 of 2013 titled as Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahender Jat decided on 16.12.2014. 

8.      As per information supplied by the police of District Hanumangarh on application EX.C-17 and Ex.C-19 it is clear that complainant gave complaint to temporary P.S. at Gugameri on 24.08.2011.  This information was supplied by the police department and cannot be disbelieved.  O.P. has miserably failed to show that he did not inform police of Gugameri on 24.08.2011.  The plea of the complainant about demand of affidavit cannot be doubted because had the police not demanded affidavit there was no necessity for him to obtain the same on 23.08.2011 copy of which is Ex.C-6.  From the perusal Ex.C-13 it is clear that on 22.08.2011 it was Monday but was holiday due to ‘Janmastmi’. This fact corroborates his version. It is mentioned in information Ex.C-19 that after preliminary investigation FIR was registered and thereafter untrace report was sent to the court.  When he gave information to the police there and then he cannot be blamed if FIR Ex.C-8 was registered on 02.11.2011. This report shows that fact of theft was genuine.  Complainant alleged that on 23.08.2011 he gave intimation to Sumer Singh Assistant Manager of company, but, he demanded copy of FIR.  It is not alleged by insurance company that Sumer Singh was not working with it as Assistant Manager. Insurance company did not produce Sumer Singh to controvert this fact.  When he is employee of insurance company  he could have been easily produced before the District Forum to controvert the averments of the complainant.  Had Sumer Singh entered the witness box then it could have been a different matter, so this version cannot be doubted. In this way it is clear that the complainant informed police as well as insurance company just after theft and there is no delay on his part.  On the basis of this evidence it cannot be presumed that there is violation of any condition by the complainant and claim cannot be repudiated on this very ground.  These views are fortified by the opinion of this commission expressed in Shriram General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar’s case (supra).  Appellant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws because they are based on altogether different facts.  In those cases, it was not established that information was given to insurance company immediately, whereas it has been done in this case, as discussed above.  In these circumstances, impugned order dated 04.08.2015 cannot be set aside. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby 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.

 

May 26th, 2016                       Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.