Haryana

Karnal

236/2012

Naveen KUmar S/o Dharampal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. G.S. Virk

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.236 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt. 9.05.2012

                                                               Date of decision:25 .08.2015

 

Naveen Kumar son of  Shri Dharampal resident of House No.1758-B/31, Gali No.3, Shashtri Colony, Gohana Road, Sonepat..

                                                             ……….Complainant.

 

                             Versus

 

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, 410-B, Mugal Canal Market,  Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                           ……… Opposite Party.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 Present:       Sh.G.S.Virk Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for the OP.

 

ORDER:

 

                        The facts giving rise to the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 are that complainant got insured his  Bajaj Discover Motor Cycle bearing registration No. HR-10L-2356 from the Opposite Party ( in short OP)  for the period of 30.1.2011 to 29.1.2012, vide insurance policy No. 102018/31/11/006260 and paid an amount of Rs.891/- as premium. The said motor cycle was stolen on  1.9.2011   from near Anupam School, Hodal.  Immediately, the complainant gave intimation to the  OP and also to the Station House Officer, Police Station (S.H.O) Hodal  for lodging  First Information Report, (F.I.R.) but the police did not lodge the FIR and went on  assuring that motor cycle would be searched. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Superintendent of Police, who marked the same to the SHO and then  FIR No. 317 dated 18.10.2011 was registered. Immediately, after the theft the complainant lodged claim with the OP and completed all the formalities, but the OP did not pay any amount of compensation and vide letter dated  12.10.2011,  repudiated the claim on  the pretext that there was delay in lodging the claim.  The plea taken by the OP is illegal because the complainant had given due intimation to the OP and local police about the theft of the vehicle.  In this way, there was deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, which  caused mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP,  who filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant on various grounds. Objections have been raised that the complainant has got no cause of action; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and  to decide the complaint and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

 

                   On merits, factum of insurance of the motor cycle of the complainant has been admitted. It has been submitted that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it was incumbent upon the complainant to give intimation to the company immediately after any accident or loss or damage.   In the present case, the theft was alleged to have taken place on 1.9.2011 and intimation of the same was given to the company on 8.10.2011 i.e. after a delay of 40 days.  Even as per  the FIR, the information of alleged theft was given on 18.10.2011, on which FIR No.317 dated 18.10.2011 u/s  379 IPC  registered on that day. The complainant violated the mandatory condition no.1 and 4 of the policy and he has been extremely negligent and has failed to exercise even reasonable care and caution in ensuring safety and security of the vehicle .  Therefore, Ops cannot be fastened with any liability.  The complaint is false and frivolous and as such the same amounts to gross abuse of the process of law. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied specifically.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, he has filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12.

 

4.                On the other hand, in the evidence of OP affidavit of Vishal Gupta, Assistant Manager (Legal) Ex.O1 and Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/J have been filed.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that his Bajaj Discover Motor Cycle bearing registration No. HR-10L-2356 was insured with the OP and the same  was stolen on 1.9.2011 from near Anupam School, Hodal. Immediately after the theft, he gave intimation to SHO, P.S.Hodal, but first information report was not lodged. Thereafter, the matter was reported to Superintendent of Police, who marked  the same to the SHO and then FIR No.317 dated 18.10.2011 was  registered.  After the theft, the claim was lodged with the OP and all the formalities were completed, but the OP did not pay the amount of compensation and vide letter dated 12.10.2011 repudiated the claim on the ground of delay. Repudiation of the claim of the complainant is illegal and unjustified.

7.                On the other hand learned counsel for the OP has laid much stress  on the contention that as per the case of the complainant, theft had taken place on 1.9.2011 and the FIR  regarding the same was registered on 18.10.2011. .Intimation to the insurance company was given after a delay of 40 days of the theft. No explanation has been furnished by the complainant for delay in giving information to the OP. Thus, there was contravention of the condition of the insurance policy, therefore, claim under the said policy is not payable and the OP has rightly repudiated the claim.  In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the law laid down in  Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd.Vs. NIC Ltd. 2015(1) CPJ 351, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Ram Avtar 2014(1) CPJ (NC) 29,  Virender Kumar Vs.New India Assurance Co.Ltd. 2013(1)CPJ(NC)71 and  New India AssuranceCo.Ltd. Versus Harpreet Singh 2013(2) CPJ (NC) 726.

8.                 In  Saurashtra  Chemicals Ltd.’s case (Supra), the complainant had given intimation to the insurance company  after  more than one month of  acquiring knowledge of loss/damage.  No explanation was given for such delay. Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that possibility of tampering evidence cannot be ruled out in a case where there is abnormal delay in intimation. Complainant contravened clause 6(1) of the General Conditions contained in the policy. Therefore, no claim under the policy was payable and the repudiation of the claim was justified.          In Ramavtar’s case (Supra), the motor cycle was stolen and FIR was lodged with the police on the same day but the information to the Insurance company was conveyed in writing after 35 days.  Under such circumstances, the Hon’ble National Commission held that repudiation of the claim on the ground of delay was justified. In the cited judgment, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court  in case titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Parvesh Chander Chadha, rendered in civil appeal No.6739 of 2010   was relied upon,  wherein it was held that insurance policy being a contract between the parties, its terms and conditions are binding on both the parties. In Virender Kumar’s case (Supra), the insured vehicle was stolen. There was delay of  ten days in lodging FIR and 15 days in giving intimation to the insurance company. It was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that delay in intimation to the insurer is breach of condition, therefore, the repudiation of the claim was justified. In Harpreet Singh’s case (Supra),  the vehicle was stolen on 10.8.2002 and the FIR was lodged on 13.8.2002, but the intimation  of the theft of vehicle was given to the insurance company on 10.10.2002. Thus, there was delay of two months  in informing the insurance company. Under those circumstances, it was held  by the Hon’ble National Commission that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy.

 

9.                 The crux of proposition of law laid down in the afore discussed authorities is that insurance  policy being contract between two parties , its terms and conditions are binding upon both the parties.  As per terms and condition of the insurance  policy, the insured is required to immediately inform the insurance company about the theft of the insured vehicle. If, he fails to inform the insurance company immediately after the theft of the insured vehicle,  that amounts to violation of the condition of the insurance policy and  under such a situation insurance company is entitled to repudiate the claim on the ground of delay in intimation. The learned counsel for the complainant could not  cite any law contrary to the proposition of law laid down in these authorities.

 

10.               In the present case, the theft had taken place on 1.9.2011. FIR  No.137 was registered in Police Station Hodal on 18.10.2011. Even if, it is accepted that SHO , initially did not register FIR and later on after approaching the Superintendent of Police, FIR was got registered, then  also such fact does not render any help to the complainant, because  intimation of theft of the vehicle was given by him to the OP on 18.10.2011 i.e. after a period of 39 days, which amounted to breach of condition of the policy.  As per condition no.1 of the policy, the notice was required to be given in writing to the insurance company immediately after the theft  or loss or damage. Under such circumstances, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the  OP cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified in any manner and thus there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

11.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file lbe consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:25.08.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

  (Anil Sharma) (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

   Member               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.G.S.Virk Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 25.8.2015.

Announced
dated:19.08.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

  (Anil Sharma) (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

   Member               Member.

.

 

 

Present:        Sh.G.S.Virk Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:25.08.2015                                                                            

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

  (Anil Sharma) (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

   Member               Member.