Per Mr.Narendra Kawde, Member
[1] Complainant has filed this consumer complaint against the opponent-Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. [hereinafter to be referred to as ‘opponent insurance company’] alleging deficiency in service for not settling the claim payable under the insurance policy on account of insured theft of the insured vehicle.
Complainant subscribed to insurance policy bearing no.215036/31/12/001524 to provide insurance cover to the Dumper owned by her [MH 08 H 1839] with sum insured of rs.22,76,000/- covering period from 13/01/2012 to 31/12/2012. The vehicle was hypothecated with the banker against the loan availed for purchase of the vehicle. On 16/07/2012, the vehicle was stolen away while it was parked on the road side. Complainant immediately i.e. on the next day 17/07/2012 reported the incident of theft to the opponent insurance company by visiting opponent’s office and also filed FIR No.022450 with concerned police station. Police have investigated into the incident and as no accused could be found filed the report in the Court of Magistrate for closing the case with ‘A’ summary. Complainant submitted insurance claim on 27/07/2012 to the opponent. The claim was repudiated by letter dated 01/08/2012 on the ground of violation of terms and condition no.1 attached to the policy which reads that “complainant failed notice in writing immediately upon occurrence of theft.”
[2] Opponent insurance company appeared by filing written version opposing contentions and claim of the complainant. Opponent generally denied that they have received intimation on 17/07/2012 of the incident of theft of insured vehicle. Opponent intimated the same only on 21/07/2012 with delay of 6 days. The delay in intimation amounts to violation of stipulation of condition no.1. Opponent also denied that lodging number of complaint was allocated on 17/07/2012 as averred by the complainant. Complainant failed to take reasonable care and precaution that man of ordinary sense would have taken care of vehicle from any kind of loss and finally prayed for dismissal of complaint.
[3] Heard Adv.Umesh Mangave for the complainant and Adv.Pravind Alawekar for the opponent insurance company.
We have perused the record placed before us and the documents relied upon by the parties.
Undisputedly, there exists insurance contract between the parties. Incident of theft is not denied or disputed. On lodging FIR, concerned police investigated into incident of theft. However, officially since culprits were not traceable, ‘A’ summary report was filed before the concerned Magistrate. It is contended by the complainant that incident of theft occurred on 16/07/2012 and on next day i.e.17/07/2012, complainant personally visited office of the opponent and intimated the incident.
[4] Opponent registered the complaint with lodging no.102526 by obtaining the claim form purported have filled in on 21/07/2012. Opponent was permitted to bring such documents even during the course of arguments, filed on record. It shows that there is no signature of the complainant on the form, although form seems to be dated 21/07/2012. As such there is no explanation from the opponent as to what happened about oral intimation given reduced into writing on 17/07/2012 in the office of opponent. That means the opponent was in receipt of notice in writing immediately on 17/07/2012 as contemplated by condition no.1 relied on by the opponent, as such there is not breach of said condition. Without having regard to the fact that the insured vehicle was stolen away, opponent insurance company has repudiated claim by invoking condition no.1 about the immediate intimation in writing upon occurrence of incident. Opponent did not consider the fact that on very next date, intimation was given in person to the concerned officer by visiting the office of the opponent. Though generally denied by the opponent, complainant was given complaint lodging no.102526 on 17/07/2012. Thereafter, on F.I.R. was filed with concerned police station. Since neither vehicle nor culprits were traced out, police filed ‘A’ summary report stating that the incident was true but the accused were not traced.
[5] On behalf of the opponent, learned Adv.Pravin Alawekar submitted that said lodging number was not for complaint in respect of theft of insured vehicle as pleaded by the complainant. Opponent insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim by invoking the relevant provisions of the terms and conditions of the policy agreed between the parties. No other ground has been invoked by the opponent for rejecting the claim.
[6] Complainant relied on the rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal – IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC). For violating terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed to pay 75% of the claim amount towards settlement of claim on non-standard basis upholding that breach of policy condition not germane in case of theft of the vehicle. In the case on hand, undisputedly the vehicle was stolen away and could not be traced out. Contention of the complainant to have given intimation on next date and obtaining lodging number could not be disbelieved. Opponent failed to counter the contention by bringing evidence on record contrary to the statement made in the consumer complaint to establish that the lodging number 102526 given on 17/07/2012 instead of 27/07/2012.
[7] Opponent insurance company has relied upon rulings as under:
i.C.A.No.8701/1997 – Ravneet singh Bagga vs. M/s.KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr.
ii.First Appeal No.321/2005 [NC]– New Indian Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane
iii.Revision Petition No.2534/2012 [NC]- Virendra Kumar vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.
iv.Revision Petition No.2982/2012 [NC] – Shri Kuldeep Singh vs. IFCO Tokia General Insurance Co.Ltd.
v.I(2014) CPJ 29 (NC) – New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. Ram Avtar
The facts in the above rulings are different with the case in hand.
In view of the aforesaid observations and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the incident of theft and since the opponent failed to bring on record to counter date of lodging number assigned to the complainant about reporting of incident, we are of the opinion that initial burden of intimating the opponent insurance company about incident has been duly discharged by the complainant. There is no other ground invoked stipulated in terms and conditions of the policy for repudiation of the claim. Therefore, opponent cannot take shelter to repudiate the claim during the course of pleadings resorted to other terms and conditions under the policy. The claim was due and payable as on date of repudiation. Repudiation on ground of not giving intimation in time is not sustainable one and therefore complaint must succeed. We hold accordingly and pass the following:-
ORDER
1)Consumer complaint is partly allowed.
2)Opponent insurance company is directed to pay an amount of Rs.22,76,000/- [Rs.Twenty Two Lac Seventy Six Thousand only] to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 01/08/2012 within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which rate of interest will be 12% p.a. payable on the amount ordered to be paid till its realization.
3)Opponent insurance company is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- [Rs.Fifty Thousand only] to the complainant towards mental agony.
4)Opponent insurance company is directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- [Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only] to the complainant.
5)One copy of the complaint compilation be retained with the Commission and rest of the sets be returned to the complainant.
6)Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith.
Pronounced
Dated 8th April, 2015.
