Haryana

StateCommission

A/932/2015

KULDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI RAM GENERAL INS. - Opp.Party(s)

NARENDR KAAJLA

06 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      932 of 2015

Date of Institution:      23.10.2015

Date of Decision :       06.01.2016

 

Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh. Vijay Singh, Resident of Village Mada, Tehsil Narnaund, District Hisar.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, 102017, SCO 138, First Floor rear portion 17, Commercial belt HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

2.      Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, IPIP, RIICO Industrial Area Sitapur, Bijapur, Rajasthan its Branch Manager.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Narender Kaajla, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri V.K. Arya, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of complainant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the order dated 16^th September, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.309 of 2013.

2.      Truck bearing registration No.HR063A-0472, owned by Kuldeep Singh-complainant/appellant, was insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/respondents, for the period December 13^th, 2011 to December 12^th, 2012, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-2. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the truck was Rs.7,90,000/-. On March 7^th, 2012 at about 10.00 P.M., the complainant left the truck in the workshop of Rajbir s/o Sh. Ramswaroop, Auto Market, Hansi, for painting. On March 11^th, 2012, the complainant received a telephonic message that his truck had been stolen. F.I.R. No.134 dated 11.03.2012 (Exhibit C-3) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged in Police Station Hansi City. Intimation was given to the Insurance Company. The Police submitted untraced report Exhibit C-4 and the same was accepted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, vide order dated February 15^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-5). The claim being submitted, the Insurance Company repudiated claim vide letter dated 22^nd, June, 2013 (Exhibit C-13) on the ground that the truck was not in possession of the insured at the time it was stolen and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the insured amount. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum was filed.

3.      The Insurance Company in its reply stated that the truck was stolen on March 7^th, 2012 whereas F.I.R. was lodged on March 11^th, 2012, after six days and intimation was given to the Insurance Company on March 12^th, 2012, that is, after seven days, which deprived the company of its right to investigate the matter immediately. It was also stated that the complainant did not take steps to safeguard the truck as the same was left unattended and thus the complainant was not entitled to the benefits of insurance.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum partly allowed complaint directing the Insurance Company to pay 75% of the IDV of truck, to the complainant within 60 days failing which the Insurance Company was directed to pay the awarded amount alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

5.      On behalf of the appellant/complainant, it has been argued that after coming to know about the theft of truck on March 11^th, 2012, he immediately informed the Police as well as the Insurance Company and there was no delay on his part, thus question of violation of condition No.1 does not arise. It was further urged that the truck was parked in the garage of Rajbir, Auto Market, Hansi, for painting on March 7^th, 2012 from where it was stolen. The complainant was informed by said Rajbir about theft of the truck on the morning of March 11, 2012 and he (complainant) immediately got lodged F.I.R. Exhibit C-3.

6.      The submission made is tenable. In the FIR (Exhibit C-3) the dates of parking of the truck in the garage and information received by the complainant have clearly been mentioned as 7^th and 11^th March, 2012 respectively. Exhibit CW2/A is the affidavit of Rajbir-proprietor of the garage, stating that the truck was left in the garage on March 7^th, 2012, he did not come to the garage for 2-3 days due to Holi festival and during this period the truck was stolen. On March 11^th, 2012 he saw that the truck was not in the garage, he immediately informed the complainant. In the face of this evidence, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the complainant in lodging FIR and giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Indisputably, the truck was handed over to Rajbir-proprietor of the garage/workshop, for painting as ‘bailment’ and thus the truck was in the nature of bailment in the workshop.  It was neither un-attended nor parked at a place, which was in the nature of abandonment. After painting it was to be returned to the complainant. Thus, there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The District Forum has failed to appreciate this evidence in its true perspective and committed error by deducting 25% of the IDV while granting 75% of the IDV on non-standard basis. The complainant is entitled to the entire insured amount.

7.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted. The Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.7,90,000/-, that is, IDV of the truck, to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

8.      With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, the appeal stands disposed of.

 

Announced 06.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL