Haryana

StateCommission

A/488/2015

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHAMSHER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

D.C.KUMAR

01 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       488 of 2015

Date of Institution:       28.05.2015

Date of Decision :        01.09.2015

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak through Shri S.P. Singh, Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, LIC Building II Floor, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Shri Shamsher Singh s/o Sh. Dharam Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office Chandpur, District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri D.C. Kumar, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal of opposite party-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’), is directed against the order dated March 9^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’),   Rohtak.  

2.      Shamsher Singh-complainant-respondent, got his truck, bearing registration No.HR-14E-0106, insured with the Insurance Company for the period from January 19^th, 2007 to January 18^th, 2008, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-3. The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) of the truck was Rs.12,50,000/-.

3.      During the intervening night of December 27^th/28^th, 2007, the truck was stolen in the area of Village Singhola, Police Station Narela (Delhi).  F.I.R. No.664 (Exhibit C-7) was lodged in Police Station Narela, on the same day, that is, December 28^th, 2012. The Insurance Company was informed. The Insurance Company appointed surveyor who investigated the matter and submitted Investigation Report (Exhibit R-6) observing as under:-

                   “                            Opinion

On the basis of the above said findings, we are of the opinion that date, time and place of theft seems to be genuine. Truck was snatched and not stolen. As per the investigation, truck was snatched by overpowered cleaner, but FIR was lodged for theft only. Insured was advised to get the FIR corrected and it should be for snatching. If FIR remains U/S 379 IPC, then the insured has to deposit keys of truck, but key were stolen with truck and could not be deposited. Police has already closed the case as untraced but untraced report from court is still awaited. Insured is agreed to accept Rs.1230000/- as full and final payment of claim. Insurer may deal with claim as per terms and conditions of policy, keeping in view of above said finding. This report is issued without prejudice.”

4.      The Police submitted untraced report Exhibit C-5/C-6. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter Exhibit R-2, stating therein as under:

“The Cover note and the Insurance Policy were issued without mentioning the Engine and Chassis numbers. Proposal form is also not enclosed. The insured did not apply for incorporation of the Engine and Chassis numbers on the policy till the date of the theft, or even after till the expiry of the said Policy. Hence, it is not possible to identify from the Policy that the vehicle, stolen or snatched, was the same which was insured by us on the captioned Policy. Hence, we are not legally liable to pay the said claim.”

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing reply while reiterating the facts stated above.

5.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, vide impugned order the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“…….the opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.12,30,000/- (Rupees twelve lac thirty thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.01.2011 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. transfer of R.C. & Subrogation letter etc to the opposite party failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, that the engine and chassis numbers of the truck were not mentioned in the Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-3) due to which it cannot be said that the insurance policy relates to the stolen truck.  Secondly, as per the report of the surveyor, the truck was snatched whereas the F.I.R. was registered for theft. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant. 

7.      The contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is not tenable in view of the  Package  Policy-Endorsement Schedule (Exhibit R-7) in which the registration number of the truck is mentioned HR-14E-0106.  This being so, it hardly matters that engine number and chassis number were not mentioned by the Insurance Company in the insurance policy (Exhibit C-3).

8.      In the First Information Report (Exhibit C-7), it was clearly mentioned by its author that the truck was stolen.  With this piece of evidence, the surveyor’s report carries no weight in which it was stated that truck was snatched.  The surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company also asked to pay Rs.12,30,000/- against the IDV of Rs.12,50,000/- to the complainant. The Insurance Company is of course liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant on account of theft of his truck.

9.      In this view of the matter, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 01.09.2015

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL