| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No.384/2012 Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri RamBaksh C/o Yashwant Singh Tokas, R/o H.N. 687A, Ground Floor, Munirka Village, New Delhi- 110067 ….Complainant Versus Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. K-18, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi- 110024 ….Opposite Party Date of Institution : 01.08.2012 Date of Order : 14.03.2022 Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal - Succinctly put, Complainant owned a motor cycle ‘Splendor plus drum’ bearing Registration No. DL 3S BN 0778, which was insured with Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) for period from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 for total sum assured of Rs.28,728/-.
- It is stated that Complainant parked his vehicle in the front gate of his residence on 18.07.2011. However, the said vehicle was not found there on 19.07.2012. The Complainant searched for the vehicle near his residence however, it could not be traced.
- It is stated that the Complainant informed the Police Station Vasant Vihar, South Delhi on the same day that is 19.07.2011 but the concerned police officer kept the said complaint pending and advised the Complainant to come after 4-5 days and if the said vehicle is not traced complainant should lodge a formal FIR. The Complainant thereafter had to go to his native place in district Faizabad, UP for some urgent work and he returned to Delhi on 26.07.2011. Meanwhile, Complainant had also informed OP regarding theft of the vehicle on 22.07.2011 and requested OP to process his claim.
- It is next stated that on 26.07.2011 immediately after returning from his native place, Complainant visited the police Station Vasant Vihar, to know the status of his vehicle. Complainant as directed by the concerned police officer lodged the FIR of the stolen vehicle. Copy of the said FIR dated 26.07.2011 is annexed as Annexure CW/12. On receiving the untraced report from the concerned court, the Complainant approached OP and submitted all the relevant documents to OP and further requested to process his claim as early as possible. But to the utmost surprise of the Complainant, OP rejected the claim of the Complainant vide letter dated 26.02.2012 stating that, there is delay of three days in intimating the OP and delay of seven days in getting the FIR registered.
- Copy of letter dated 26.02.2012 is annexed as Annexure CW/5. It is further stated that the Complainant had only received the cover note from OP. The terms and conditions of the policy were not supplied to the Complainant; therefore, the said condition is not applicable on him.
- Aggrieved by the repudiation, Complainant approached this Forum for directions to OP to make the payment of insured value of vehicle
i.e. Rs.28,728/- with interest @18% p.a. from the date of claim, till the date of payment. It is also prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards harassment, mental agony and Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost.
- OP resisted the Complainant stating inter-alia that the said motor cycle was allegedly stolen in the intervening night of 18/19.07.2011 and Complainant subsequently after delay of three days intimated the theft on 22.07.2011 to OP and thereafter lodged the FIR after an undue and inordinate delay of seven days on 26.07.2011, thereby standing in clear violation of Condition No. 1 of the terms and condition of the Policy. The relevant portion of Condition No. 1 is given below:
“Condition 1: Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the Insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claims writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the Insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this Policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.” - The OP subsequently appointed an investigator to look into the incident and the investigation report also brought out the same discrepancy being that of delay in FIR and Intimation. The said report also brought forth the negligence of Complainant as the vehicle was parked in an open residential area, where no security was available. The Complainant therefore has failed to take reasonable steps in order to avoid the event of theft of the said insured vehicle.
- Denying any deficiency of service OP states that, it has rightly repudiated the claim of the Complainant as OP has duly acted according to the terms and conditions of the Policy. Therefore, it has prayed that complaint be dismissed as it is devoid of any cause of action.
- Replication on behalf of the Complainant is filed. Evidence by way of affidavit and Written Arguments are filed on behalf of both parties. Arguments on behalf of parties are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
- Dispute between parties arose, when OP repudiated the claim of the Complainant vide letter dated 26.02.2012 stating that:
“It has been observed that loss allegedly took place on 19.07.2011 and the claim was intimated to us on 22.07.2011 as well as to police authority belatedly as on 26.07.2011, which means that you have not given opportunity to policy authority to investigate the matter immediately on theft occurrence, which has constituted overall loss. This constitutes serious breach of Condition No. 1 of Insurance Policy.” - It is Complainant’s case that the Complainant is the owner of motor cycle, which got stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy by OP. Complainant being a carpenter used the said motor cycle for his livelihood. Being a layman and in the absence of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, which were not provided by OP, there was delay of three and seven days in intimation to OP and Police respectively. The Complainant parked the said motor cycle at his rented accommodation, where many vehicles of other occupants were parked on 18.07.2011 .The next day on 19.07.2011 the motor cycle went missing from the place. He searched for the vehicle all around and informed the concerned police station. Immediately thereafter, the Complainant had to go to his native place in Faizabad, UP for some urgent work and returned to Delhi on 26.07.2011. He went to the police station to inquire regarding the status of his motor cycle and it was then that he got the FIR lodged. Meanwhile, he had already informed OP regarding the theft of the vehicle on 22.07.2011.
- The only issue which requires consideration by this commission is whether the delay in intimating to OP and filing of the FIR can be condoned or not.
OP in this regard has relied upon recent judgment passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh V/s Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (2020) 11 SCC 612, wherein repudiation of the claim by an Insurance Company on the ground of delay in filing FIR has been upheld. The Hon’ble Court has held that in cases of theft immediate filing of an FIR is essential.
- OP has also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Bachan Singh V/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014 (2) C.P.C. 309, wherein it is held that in cases of theft even delay of two days in filing the FIR is fatal and the claim can be repudiated on the same ground.
- We are of the view that cited judgments can be distinguished on facts as both the judgments are related to a Commercial Vehicle Package Policy, whereas, the instant case is that of a two-wheeler Insurance Policy for private vehicle. Moreover, OP in para 9 of its Evidence by way of affidavit has stated that OP was/is ready to settle the claim of the Complainant vehicle after deducting the compulsory deductibles. Regarding this, OP also intimated the Complainant and issued a cheque bearing No. 322516 dated 12.07.2014 for the amount of Rs.23,619/- subject to Complainant’s submitting final untrace report duly accepted by the concerned Magistrate. However, the settlement did not take place. Furthermore, the investigation report filed by OP also states that the claim is genuine and there does not seem any kind of negligence by the insured.
- We are therefore of the opinion that since OP was ready to settle the claim, now OP can not be allowed to dispute the genuineness of the claim of the Complainant. We are of the considered view that, OP had conceded to pay Rs.23,619/- to the Complainant on submitting the untraced report. The same already stands submitted as per the Complainant. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct OP to pay the amount conceded by OP that is Rs.23,619/- along with interest @6% from the date of filing of the complaint and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost till realization. Failing which, OP is directed to pay Rs.23,619/- @10% till the date of realization.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website. | |
