Haryana

StateCommission

A/2/2023

CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.NAHAR

30 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.02 of 2023

                   Date of Institution:02.01.2023

Reserved for Orders:20.09.2024

Date of Pronouncement:30.09.2024

 

1.      Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 338, Canara Bank ATM Basement Mugal Canal, Karnal, through its Manager.

 

2.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Hari Niwas Towers, Ist Floor, 163, Thambu Chetty Street Parry Scorner, Chennai 600001, through its Manager.

 

3.      Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. First Floor Plot No.6, Pusa Road, Metro Pillar No.81, Karolbagh (New Delhi) through its Manager.

 

Now all through its authorized signatory, Ms. Vidhi Passi, Assistant Manager Claims (Legal) Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO No.2463-2464, IInd Floor, Sector 22-C,Chandigarh.

         

…..Opposite Parties/Appellants

 

Versus

 

 

Sher Singh S/o Shri Tek Ram, R/o Village Bhawar, Tehsil & District Sonepat.

…..Complainant/Respondent

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                   Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Shri  J.P.Nahar, counselfor the appellants.

                   Shri Suresh Ahlawat, counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

1.      Initially, the complainant filed Consumer Complaint bearing No.184 of 2013 before the learned District Consumer Commission, Rohtak, which was  decided on 07.02.2017 in favour of the complainant. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the OPs-appellants filed the First Appeal No.436 of 2017 against the order dated 07.02.2017 before this Commission, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.08.2019 with the direction by permitting the complainant to withdraw the complaint itself but with liberty to move the appropriate District Consumer Commission having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter. The complainant filed fresh Consumer Complaint bearing No.681 of 2019 before the learned District Consumer Commission, Karnal, which was decided on 05.08.2022 in favour of the complainant. Feeling aggrieved therefrom,     Appellants-CholamandalamMS General Insurance Company Ltd.&others, filed the instant appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for challenging the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal whereby complaint filed by complainant-Sher Singhwas allowedwith following directions:

“Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs. Four Lakhs forty five thousand only) (SIC)insured declared value (IDV) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards the litigation expenses. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5000/- as cost imposed by the Commission vide order dated 17.01.2020 to the complainant. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, the complainant is also directed to get all the formalities completed with regard to transfer of vehicle as and when the OP desire.”

2.      The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle Mahindra Bollero bearing No.HR-11D-2144 and got insured the same from opposite parties (OPs) vide policy No.3362/0076358/000/00 for the period of 11.08.2012 to 10.08.2013 and paid the required premium for the said purpose. The IDV of the said vehicle was Rs.4,50,000/-. The complainant’s vehicle was stolen on 11.08.2012. The complainant intimated the concerned police station, Sun Light Colony, South East Distt., New Delhi and registered the FIR No.317 dated 12.08.2012 under section 379 IPC. Despite several efforts made by the police as well as the complainant, the above said vehicle could not be traced. The complainant intimated the OPs about the theft of the vehicle on the same day verbally and lodged his claim for the said vehicle and submitted all the required documents with the OPs. Untraced report of the said vehicle was also issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi, which was also submitted by the complainant to the OPs. On 22.02.2013, the OPs illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on false and frivolous grounds. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.      Notice being issued, OPs appeared and filed written statement.  Preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint, jurisdiction, cause of action and concealment of true and material facts were raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.  Further pleaded that the theft of vehicle in question took place within the jurisdiction of Delhi, FIR was lodged at Delhi, at the time of purchase of policy the complainant was residing at Sonepat and vehicle was also registered at Sonepat.  On merits, it was pleaded that there was no territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter.  In the present case fresh complaint is filed before the  appropriate District Forum within 45 days from today, the intimation would be deemed to have been condoned. The intimation about theft has been given to them after the delay of 38 days.  At the time of getting the vehicle insured, the complainant handed over previous insurance of vehicle, alleged to be issued by Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co.  On verification of the previous cover note, the same was found to be fake one. The complainant initially gave previous insurance cover note (fake), just to avoid the inspection of the vehicle at the time of getting the vehicle insured, as  infact the vehicle in question was already stolen and thus he intentionally gave delayed intimation. As per registration certificate of vehicle No.HR-11D-2144, the vehicle was registered with Registration Authority, Gohana on 11.09.2020 and thus  the vehicle was previously insured from some other insurance company. As per version of complainant, he left vehicle unattended in open without authorized parking “by the side of bridge near Bhumi Mata Mandir Ashram” making vehicle venerable to theft which was against the condition of policy. There was a delay of one months and 7 days in providing information to the OPs. Hence, his claim has been rightly repudiated.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal, (In short “District Consumer Commission”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 05.08.2022 and relevant portion of the order is mentioned in para No.1 of the order.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs-appellants have preferred this appealseeking setting aside of the impugned order.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties. With theirkind assistance the entire record of appeal and that of complaint alongwithEX. C-1 to C-24 and Ex.OP-1 to OP-8 werethoroughly perused andexamined.

7.      Learned counsel for the OPs/appellants vehemently argued thatthe learned District Consumer Commission, Karnal had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint as theft of vehicle in question took place within the jurisdiction of Delhi, FIR was lodged at Delhi, at the time of purchase of policy, the complainant was residing at Sonepat, vehicle was also registered at Sonepat and even the untraced report was accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.   Further argued that complainant intimated the theft of vehicle after the delay of 38 days.  Further argued that at the time of getting the vehicle insured, the complainant handed over previous insurance policies, alleged to be issued by Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.  The complainant initially gave previous insurance cover note (fake), just to avoid the inspection of the vehicle.  There was inordinate delay of one month and seven days in providing information  to the opposite parties. The mandatory requirement of providing information to the police and insurance company has been violated and as such the claim was rightly repudiated and same was communicated to the complainant. The complainant was not entitled to any claim from the OPs.

8.      Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his vehicle with the OPs and IDV of the vehicle was Rs.4,50,000/-. Further argued that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, vehicle in question was stolen, the complainant was entitled for the insured amount as prayed for. The OPs have illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant.

9.      It is not disputed that complainant was the registered owner of vehicle (Mahindra Bollerobearing registration No. HR-11D-2144) and same was insured with the OPs for the period from 11.08.2012 to 10.08.2013.  It is also not disputed that IDV of the vehicle was Rs.4,50,000/-.   It is also not disputed that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question was stolen.  The plea of the OPs was that complainant intimated the theft of the vehicle after 38 days of incident, is not acceptable in the eyes of law because as per judgement of Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.15611 of 2017 decided on 04.10.2017 by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that if the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactory explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.  The complainant has already explained the delay in complaint itself as well as to the opposite parties. The similar view is taken by the Hon’ble  Supreme Court of India in case titled Dharamender Vs. United India Insurance Co. and others in Civil Appeal No.5705 of 2021 decided on 13.09.2021.  Another argument of OPs regarding fake cover note of other insurance company is also denied because OPs have miserably failed to prove its version by leading any cogent or convincing evidence.  It was the duty of the insurance company to verify the previous insurance policy of the customer at the time of issuance of new insurance policy.  OPs should have issued the new insurance policy after observing the documents of the customer. In the present case, the OPs already issued the insurance policy to the complainant. The OPs have wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant had already mentioned in the complaint that  insurance policy was taken from Karnal, therefore, District Consumer Commission, Karnal has jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the complaint.  Hence, the argument of jurisdiction is also not tenable in the eyes of law. The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The State Consumer Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Consumer Commission. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

10. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited by appellants at the time of filing of this appeal. This amount is now ordered to be reimbursed to complainant-Sher Singh against proper receipt, identification and verification as per rules and registry of this Commission is accordingly directed.

11.  

12.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

13.    File be consigned to record room.

 

30^thSeptember, 2024          Manjula         S.P.Sood                              T.P. S. Mann

                                                Member         Judicial Member                 President

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)