Haryana

StateCommission

A/383/2016

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI BALAJI TRADERS - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GUPTA

04 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal    No  :    383 of  2016

Date of Institution  :      04.05.2016  

Date of Decision    :      04.10.2016

  

National Insurance Company Limited, 5C/1 & 2, Neelam Chowk, Faridabad through its Manager.

Now represented through the Duly Authorized Signatory of Regional Office, National Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.332-334, Sector 34A, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

M/s Shri Balaji Trades, near AXIS Bank, Hodal, District Palwal, through its Proprietor Kailash Chand s/o Kundan Lal.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                        

 

 

 

Present:               Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Kailash Chand, respondent-complainant in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

National Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) is in appeal against the order dated August 27^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Shri Balaji Traders-complainant was allowed.  Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.38,927/- (Insured Declared Value) of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR50C-5099 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, April 24^th, 2015 on account of theft of motorcycle on September 03^rd, 2013; Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5100/- litigation expenses to the complainant. 

2.          Complainant got his motorcycle insured with the Insurance Company for the period December 04^th, 2012 to December 03^rd, 2013 vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-2. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the motorcycle was Rs.38,927/-. On August 30^th, 2013, the motorcycle was stolen. The complainant informed the Police vide application Annexure A-11. First Information Report No.273 dated September 13^th, 2013 (Annexure A-2) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was lodged in Police Station Hodal, Palwal. The Insurance Company was informed. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the benefits of insurance. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.  

3.      The Insurance Company did not appear and was ex parte before the District Forum.

4.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that there was delay in lodging F.I.R. and giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Since, the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, he was not entitled for any compensation.

5.      The first plea that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. Indisputably, the motorcycle was stolen on August 30^th, 2013, that is, during the subsistence of the insurance policy and on the same day, the complainant had submitted an application Annexure A-11 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Hodal, District Palwal for lodging F.I.R. but the Police lodged F.I.R. (Annexure C-3) on September 13^th, 2013. The delay was caused by the Police.  The Police have filed Untraced Report (Annexure C-4).  Once the Police have registered the F.I.R and submitted Untraced Report, the question of breach of trust does not arise.  In view of this, it is established that the complainant had informed the Police immediately on August 30^th, 2013. Thus, the delay in lodging F.I.R. was not the fault of the complainant.   

6.      The second plea raised by the Insurance Company that there was delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company.  Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon Claim Intimation Letter (Annexure A-3).  The contention raised is not acceptable because in fact, Annexure A-3 is the claim form submitted by the complainant to the Insurance Company. Except this document, no cogent evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company to prove that there was delay in giving intimation by the complainant.  Thus, the plea taken by the Insurance Company deserves to be deprecated because complainant’s claim is well founded.  It is unfortunate that the Insurance Company takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The Insurance Company should not rely upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of the claimants.

7.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further urged that the amount of Rs.5100/- awarded as litigation expenses by the District Forum may be ordered to be waived off because the District Forum has not only directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.38,927/- (Insured Declared Value) of motorcycle alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, April 24^th, 2015; but also granted Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. 

8.      Submission being convincing, amount of Rs.5100/- awarded on account of litigation expenses is waived off and rest of the order shall remain the same.  The appeal is disposed of accordingly and the impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- & Rs.33,010/- respectively deposited by the Insurance Company be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

 

Announced 04.10.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK