Haryana

Karnal

43/2013

Sharwan Kumar S/o Shri Shanker Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vishal Turan

18 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.   

                                                                    Complaint No. 43 of 2013                                                                          

                                                                    Date of instt.25.01.2013                                                           

                                                                    Date of decision:18.02.2016

 

Sharwan Kumar son of ShriShanker Dass resident of village and Post office, Karora district Kaithal.

                                                                        ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

 

1.    Shriram General Insurance company  Limited E-8, EPIP, Sitapura Jaipur (Rajasthan) through its Manager.

2.      Shriram General Insurance Company Limited SCO- 404, Mugal Colony, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

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

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-        Sh.Vishal Turan Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

ORDER:                  

            

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got his Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-08G-7137 insured with the Opposite Party   for a sum of Rs.24000/- and the insurance policy was valid from 25.6.2010 to 24.6.2010.  On 20.2.2011 the said motor cycle was in  the custody of Pardeep Sharma,  and the same was stolen by some unknown person from Taraori District Karnal. Pardeep Sharma reported the matter to the police and the case bearing First Information Report no.59 was registered in Police Station, Taraori on 23.2.2011. The matter was brought to the notice of Opposite Parties.  Inspite of best efforts, the motor cycle could not be traced and the police submitted final report in that regard. He repeatedly requested the Opposite Parties to make payment of the claim, but they kept on dillydallying the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused. Such act on the part of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary  parties; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complaint is not within limitation; that the complainant has not approached  this Forum with clean hands and that the compaint is false, frivolous and gross abuse of the process of law.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant gave motor cycle to another  person  without any authority and that person failed to take due care  and safeguard of the motor cycle by leaving the same unattended in the night.The complainant was negligent and  he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own negligence. Moreover, the motor cycle was stolen on 20.2.2011 and the  information was given  at belated stage to the police on 23.2.2011 and the Opposite Parties  were intimated  on 28.2.2011. Thus, the complainant  violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, his claim was rightly repudiated by the Opposite Parties and there was no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on their part. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Pardeep Kumar Ex.C9 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 have been tendered.

 

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Parties affidavit of Rajinder Sharma Ex.OP-1/A and documents and documents  Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

6.                It is admitted fact that motor cycle of the complainant bearing registration No. HR-08G-7137 was insured with the Opposite Parties for the period of 25.6.2010 to 24.6.2011. As per the case of the comlpainant, the s aid motor cycle was stolen on 20.2.2011 by some unknown person in the area of  Taraori  and  First Information Report  bearing no.59 dated 23.2.2011 was registered in Police Station Taraori regarding the said theft. The Opposite Parties repudiated the claim of the ocmplaiannt only on the ground that intimation of theft was given to the Opposite Parties after nine days of the theft of the vehicle. 

 

7.                Ther learned counsel for the Opposite Parties put great thrust upon the contention  that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complaiannt was required to give intimation to the Opposite Parties about loss/theft immediately, but he gave intiamtion to the Opposite Parties after nine days delay, which  was  the violation of the condition of the insurance pollicy, therefore, claim of the comlpainant was repudiated on this ground.

 

8.                On the other hand, the learend counsel for the complainant contended that initially Pardeep Sharma made best efforts  to search the motor cycle at his own level and then reported the matter to the police. The complainant  also  searched for the motor cycle at various places before intimating the theft to the Opposite Parties. There was no unreasonable delay on the part of the complainant in intimating the Opposite Parties. Therefore, repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the Opposite Parties on the technical ground amounted to deficiency in services . In support of his contention, he placed reliance on  The Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Yadram  2014(2) CLT386 and  Shriram General Insuranc  Company Limited Vs.Rajesh Kumar, 2014(2) CLT 390.

 

9.                In Yadram’s case (Supra),  the vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 21st and 22^nd of December, 2010 and the First Information  Report was lodged on 25^th of December, 2010.The insurance company was informed on January 4^th 2011 i.e. after delay of fifteen days. Hon’ble  State Commission, Haryana  considered the circular of  September 20, 2011 issued by the  Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and observed in para no.9 and 10 as under:

 

           9.      “It is very clear from the above circular that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. The decision of insurers’ to reject a claim of the claiment should be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The limitation clause does not work  in isolation and is not absolute. One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely procedural grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policy holders losing confidence in the insurance industry,  giving rise to exclusive litigation. It has been further advised in the said letter that the insurers must not repudiate such claims unless and until the reasons of delay are specifically ascertained, recorded.”

 

           10.    “What is the spirit of Insurance policy, should be kept in mind by the officials dealing with the genuine claims of the suffers and the same should not be rejected on methodological grounds in a mechanical manner. The tendency of insurance companies in rejecting the genuine claims is the reason of increasing litigation  between the insurers and the insureds/their legal heirs.”

 

                   It was held that rejection of the claim was contrary to the said circular and intimation to the insurance company after fifteen days was not significant in genuine claim of the complainant. A person who lost his vehicle, which was being used by him for earning livelihood straightway may not go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At the first instance, he himself makes efforts to search the vehicle. Filing of claim with the insurance company is the last resort.   Therefore, under those circumstances, it was  indeed a deficiency in service on the part of the  appellant for repudiating  claim on flimsy ground.  There may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation, but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the  claim of the claimant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine.

 

11.               In Rajesh Kumar’s case (Supra), also the same principle  of law was followed. There was delay of 12 days in giving intimation to the insurance company regarding theft of vehicle and the claim was repudiated by the insurance company. Under those circumstances, the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana held that repudiation of the claim was indeed  a deficiency in services on the part of the Insurance company.

 

12.               In the instant case  the vehicle was stolen on the night  of 20.2.2011 and the First Information Report was lodged on 23.2.2011.The vehicle was in custody of Pardeep Sharma a relative of the complainant when the same was stolen . Intimation by the complainant to the Opposite Parties regarding the theft of  vehicle was given on 28.2.2011 i.e. after  almost eight days of the theft. The delay in giving intimation cannot be considered as unreasonable or inordinate. The complainant himself  had made efforts to search the vehicle before giving intimation to the insurance company. In view of the law laid down in the aforediscussed  authorities and under the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was not fair or reasonable on the part of the Opposite Parties to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant,  which was verified and found to be correct by the surveyor. Consequently, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the Opposite Parties was indeed a deficiency in services on their part.

 

13.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties 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.25.1.2013 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The Opposite Parties 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
dated:18.02.2016

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.Vishal Turan Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

                   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
dated:18.02.2016

                                                               (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.Vishal Turan Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.Vineet Rathore Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

                     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
dated:18.02.2016

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

            (Anil Sharma ) 

               Member.