Haryana

Karnal

EA/21/2015

Om Parkash S/o Daya Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram Life General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Maya Ram Kadyan

14 Dec 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

                                                Execution No. 21 of 2015

                                                Date of instt. 18.03.2012

                                                Date of decision: 22.01.2015.

 

Om Parkash son of Shri Daya Chand resident of village and post office Gagsina district Karnal.

 

.

                                                        ……..Complainant.

                                        Vs.

1.Shriram General, Insurance company Ltd. Corporate Office E-8,EPIP RICO Industrial Area, Sitapura Jaipuir 302022(Rajasthan).

2.Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Show Room No.410, Mugal Canal Karnal 132001..

.                                          ……Opposite parties.

 

                                Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                Protection Act.

 

Before      Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

Present:- Sh.Maya Ram Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Vineet Rathore , Advocate for the OPs.

ORDER

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that  he was registered  owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-05AA-0616 which was insured with the OPs and the said policy was valid w.e.f

8. 11.2011   to 7.11.2012 vide insurance cover note  No. A 568573. and that the said vehicle was stolen on 1.12.2011 and the matter was reported to the police and the  FIR No.478 dated 2.12.2011 was got registered in P.S.Gharaunda. The matter was reported to the  OPs and the clam was lodged with OPs and all the formalities were completed but the claim of the complainant has not been reimbursed which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.. Thus the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency in services and has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay the sum insured alongwith compensation for the harassment caused to him and also the litigation expenses. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint alongwith certain other documents.

 

2.             On notice the OPs appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts and that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

                  On merits it was contended that the claim has rightly been repudiated because there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The intimation of theft was given to the company on 30.11.2011 stating therein that the vehicle has been stolen on 25.11.2011 and thereafter the complainant lodged the FIR  on 1.12.2011. It was also contended that the vehicle was left unattended and there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, it was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and dismissal of the complaint was sought.

 

 

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

 

4.                 As per the contention  raised by the OPs the claim has rightly been repudiated because there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy because the vehicle was left unattended and as per investigation report the vehicle appears to have been stolen on 25.11.2011 and the intimation to the police was given on 1.12.2011. The claim has  also been repudiated on the ground that there was delay in intimation to the OP.

 5.                The learned counsel for the OPs have placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble National commission   in case Devinder Kumar Versus NIC in revision petition No. 3840  of 2011 decided on 2.4.2012  in order to infer  that claim has rightly been repudiated as the driver has not  acted in a prudent manner and has left the ignition key in the said vehicle as  is evident from the contents of the FIR and thus the claim has rightly been repudiated in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission  in case  Jagdish Parshad Vs.ICICI Lombard in revision petition 1996 of 2012 decided on 14.5.2013

 6.                        The learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that recently Hon’ble State Commission has laid down an elaborate law vide judgment dated 9.05.2014 passed in First Appeal No.66 of 2014 Sukram Pal Vs. NIC.  It was contended that the Hon’ble State Commission has referred the circular dated 20.09.2011 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority   and according to the said circular the Insurance Companies should not  prevent in settling  of genuine claims, particularly when there was  delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.  It was also argued that  the Chairman of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority  has advised  the insurance companies to develop a sound mechanism of their own to handle  the claim with utmost care and caution.  It was also contended that there is no mention of IRDA circular dated 20.09.2011 in the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the OP. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in case law by the Hon’ble State Commission vide judgment dated 9.05.2014 passed in First Appeal No.66 of 2014 Sukram Pal Vs. NIC   it has to be held that the claim of the complainant was not liable to be rejected on the ground of delay in  intimation. Reliance has also been placed on the law laid down in case  Delhi Dhulia Road Carriers Vs.United India Insurance Company Ltd.and another 2012(4) CLT pag4e 623

 

 

 

6..            Therefore, after going through the circumstances of the case and the evidence on the file it emerges  that the vehicle bearing No. HR-05AA-0616 was insured with the OPs vide insurance policy Ex.C3 and on 1.12.2011 the said vehicle  was stolen and the matter was reported to the police and the FIR  Ex.C4 was registered and the insurance company was intimated and the claim has been repudiated primarily on the ground that ignition key was left in the  vehicle and as such there was gross negligence on the part of the driver and the same was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

 

7.             However, as per evidence and FIR Ex.C4, there is nothing in the said FIR that complainant has reported that he left the ignition key in the said vehicle.  No doubt,  in view of Ex.OP/3 the factum of leaving key in the motor cycle has been mentioned but it seems that the said affidavit Ex.OP/3 has only been got prepared later   view a view to  repudiate the claim of the complainant and the said affidavit Ex.OP/3 is contrary to the contents of the FIR Ex.C4.  Therefore, in view of the evidence on record there is no breach of condition of the insurance policy as alleged by the OP and as such non granting of claim tantamounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

 

 8.            Therefore, in view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to make the payment of sum insured to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.6.2011 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and the litigation expenses. The OPs shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

  Announced

  22.1.2015.                                                       (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                           President,

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes  

                                                                      Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

               

(Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                   Member.

 

 

Present:- Sh.Maya Ram Advocate for the complainant.

                 Sh.Vineet Rathore , Advocate for the OPs.

 

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

 

  Announced

   22.01.2015.                                    Subhash Goyal)

                                                               President,

                                              District Consumer Disputes  

                                                   Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

(Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                   Member.