Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 465.
Instituted on : 11.08.2017.
Decided on : 15.02.2019.
Manoj son of Sh. Mahinder Singh, Age 46, Resident of Village Ishmaila, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd., Second Floor, Anand Plaza, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Civil Road, Rohtak, through its Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Devrat Dalal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was having a truck bearing registration No.HR-46B-8265 which was insured with the OP vide policy No.1862189 for a period from 20.06.2014 to 19.06.2015. That on 18.06.2015, the complainant after parking the said truck in front of his house and by locking it completely, slept inside house. On 19.06.2015, when the complainant came out from his house, he found his truck missing. After that complainant gave information to the police regarding the theft of his truck, on which an FIR No.331 dated 20.06.2015 was registered in Police Station Sampla. Complainant also informed the OP on the same day and submitted the set of documents with the OP as desired by them. The OP registered the claim of the complainant as Claim No. 187848. That complainant also submitted other documents desired by the OP and fulfilled all the formalities. But the OP rejected the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 28.03.2016 on the false grounds that vehicle was stolen on 09.06.2015 and FIR was lodged on 20.06.2015 after a delay of 11 days. These allegations are false and baseless, because the vehicle of the complainant was stolen in the intervening night of 18.06.2015 and 19.06.2015 and FIR was registered on 20.06.2015. The information to the police and OP was given on the same day. That the act of OP is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that OP may kindly be directed to disburse the insured amount i.e. Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith other benefits and interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of theft till actual realization and to pay Rs. 21,000/- as litigation and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that there has been delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR and one month in intimating the OP and there has been gross negligence on the part of complainant for taking reasonable care of the vehicle in question, as parked the vehicle with cabin in non working conditions/out of order and was unlocked condition and furthermore complainant had not called on the 100 (police number) to trace the vehicle at earliest, so, claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated. It is further submitted that during the limitation on the toll free number of the OP, the informer intimated the date of theft as 09.06.2015, whereas later on the complainant conveyed the date of loss as 19.06.2015, (as per the FIR). The contents regarding registration of the FIR No. 331 dated 20.06.2015, Police Station Sampla is correct as per the documents supplied by the complainant. Further submitted that it is wrong and denied that information regarding the theft of the vehicle was made to the police authorities and OP on the same day, as alleged. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 24.05.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on dated 25.10.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide its repudiation letter Ex.C6 on the ground that there was delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR and delay of one month in giving intimation to the company. In this regard it is observed that the matter regarding theft was investigated by the insurance company itself and as per the statement Ex.R4 recorded during investigation by the investigating officer of the insurance company, it has been mentioned that the intimation regarding the theft has been given in P.S.Sampla just after the theft and regarding this effect FIR no.331 dated 20.06.2015 was got recorded. In the present case FIR was registered on 20.06.2015 whereas as per respondent the occurrence had taken place during the intervening night of 8/9.06.2015. The respondent officials main objection is that FIR was got lodged after a delay of 11 days whereas as per the investigation itself the concerned police station was intimated just after the theft. The perusal of FIR Ex.R3 itself shows that occurrence took place during the intervening night of 18/19.06.2015 and the matter was investigated by the police officials. The respondent officials has not placed on record any authenticated report issued by the police officials or by any investigating agency which could prove that the theft was occurred during the intervening night of 8/09.06.2015. However, respondent officials have also placed on record CD Ex.R6 to prove that the occurrence had taken place during the intervening night of 8/09.06.2015. After hearing the conversation, it is observed of CD, a person is stating that the occurrence took place in the month of July 2015 but after sometime he states that occurrence had taken place in the month of June 08/09.06.2015. Hence the version of the person itself is contradictory. Moreover, the CD is not supported with any affidavit or any other legal evidence hence the same cannot be believed. However, if there is a delay regarding the information to the police officials or to the insurance company on that ground also, as per the judgment cited by ld. counsel for the complainant in Oriental Insurance company Ltd. Vs. Shokeen and others, CPW No.31215 of 2018 decided on 10.12.2018, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh has held that: “The insurance company repudiated claim of respondent No.1 merely on the ground that there was eight days delay in giving intimation to it. This was not sufficient reason to repudiate claim of respondent no.1. Respondent No.1 might have traced his vehicle at his own and when he failed to trace it out, he intimated the insurance company regarding the theft”, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2011-4PLR, 154 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma has held that : “Merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform the petitioner-company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim We have also placed reliance upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula decided on 20.09.2018 by Hon’ble Justice Nawab Singh titled as Cholamandalam MS General In2surance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljeet Singh and order dated 20.08.2018 decided by Hon’ble Judicial Member Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary titled as Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs. Balwant Rai… “It is very clear from the circular of IRDA that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. The decision of insurers to reject a claim of the claimant should be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute”. Hence in view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, the repudiation of claim on the alleged ground of delayed intimation by the opposite party is illegal and the alleged plea is turned down.
6. The other plea taken by the opposite party is that the insured has not taken reasonable steps to safeguard his vehicle. In this regard it is observed that as per copy of FIR Ex.C1, the vehicle was standing in front of the house of complainant and not in any open space. Moreover it is not proved that the vehicle was unlocked at the time of theft. Hence the plea taken by the opposite party is not tenable and the law cited by ld. counsel for the respondent of Hon’ble National commission in Revision Petition no.474 of 2017 titled as Dilbagh Singh Vs. OIC is not applicable on the facts and circumstance of the case as facts of the alleged case are different from the present case. Hence the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the IDV(Rs.1000000/-) of vehicle after deduction of the excess clause of Rs.1500/- i.e. to pay Rs.998500/-(Rupees nine lac ninety eight thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.08.2017 till its realization and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.29, 30, Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and affidavit to the opposite party.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.02.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
