Haryana

Karnal

CC/124/2017

Rajesh Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Kumar

17 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.124 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 31.03.2017

                                                         Date of decision:17.12.2018

 

Rajesh Malik aged about 36 years, son of Shri Om Parkash Malik, resident of village & Post Office Kurar, Tehsil Bapoli, District Panipat.

                                                                                                                                                                  …….Complainant     

                                        Versus

1. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., 78, Ground Floor, Pusa Road, opposite to Rachna Cinema and Metro Pillar no.153, Rajendra Park, New Delhi-110 060, through its Manager.

2. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 388-389.

Karan Commercial Complex/Mugal Canal, near Guru Harikrishan     Public School, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary………Member

 

 Present  Shri Sanjay Kumar Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Mohit Goyal Advocate for OPs.

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant got insured his vehicle (canter) bearing registration no.HR-67-3279 with the OP, vide policy no.1817818, valid from 28.05.2015 to 27.05.2016. The said vehicle was stolen and an FIR no.198 dated 9.3.2016 under section 379 IPC was lodged in Police Station Civil Lines Karnal. Thereafter, complainant informed the OPs in this regard and filed the theft claim form with the OPs after completing all the formalities. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs several times for settling the theft claim but officials of the OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 15.12.2018 in this regard to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; deficiency in service; complaint is false and frivolous and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the theft of the vehicle in question occurred on 8.3.2016 whereas the intimation as given to OP on 23.08.2016 i.e. after 168 days of the loss/theft. Therefore, the OPs has repudiated the claim of the complainant for breach of condition no.1 of the motor vehicle insurance policy and has been communicated to the complainant, vide letter dated 12.09.2017. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on 02.02.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 15.11.2018.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that he was a registered owner of Canter no.HR67-3279 which was insured by the OP from 28.05.2015 to 27.05.2016. The said vehicle was stolen and an FIR no.198 dated 9.3.2016 was registered in Police Station civil line, Karnal. The complainant contacted many times to the OP regarding his theft claim. But OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. On 26.08.2016, on demanding the documents by the OP, complainant supplied all required documents including untraced report. OP did not settle the theft claim so far.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the complainant intimated regarding the theft of his vehicle on 23.08.2016 hopefully delayed 168 days. Thus, it is a breach of condition no.1 of the policy. As per the condition no.1, notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damaged in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall have all such information and assistance as the company shall required.

8.             Admittedly, the canter in question was stolen during the subsistence of the policy. An FIR no.198 dated 09.03.2016 under section 379 IPC was registered in Police Station Civil Line, Karnal. As per the FIR (Ex.C5) the said vehicle was stolen on 8.3.2016 and on the very next day complainant lodged FIR in Police Station Civil Line, Karnal. As per the OP, the intimation was given by the complainant on 23.08.2016. The theft claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that complainant has violated the condition no.1 of the insurance policy for which the claim of the complainant is decided as per non-standard basis.

9.             In view of authority cited in Revision Petition no.1870 of 2015(NC) decided on 14.08.2018 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Thirath Singh Brar and authority of our own Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal no.717 of 2016 decided on 6.4.2017 titled as United India Insurance Company Limited and others Versus Anshul Bansal. In both judgments it was held that in case of any breach of warranty/condition of the policy the insurer is liable to pay 75% of admissible claim on non-standard basis.

10.           The proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission Haryana is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case complainant violated the terms of the policy regarding delay in intimation. Consequently, the complainant is held entitled to get 75% of the of the insured amount.

11.           As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the  complaint partly and direct the OP to pay 75% of the insured amount i.e. Rs.3,30,000/- to the complainant.  We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:17.12.2018

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

   (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member