Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/768/2015

Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/768/2015
Date of Institution	:	17/11/2015
Date of Decision	:	23/01/2017

 

Avtar Singh, H.No. 773, Mohalla Jattan Wala, Mani Majra, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 178, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

……Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:	SH.S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Vinod Arya, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

PER surjeet kaur, member

 

1.         In brief, the complainant got his Chevrolet Tavera bearing Regn. No. CH-02-2310 insured from the Opposite Party, valid from 08.08.2012 to 07.08.2013, with an IDV of Rs.3,00,000/-. Unfortunately, on the intervening night of 26/27.11.2012, the vehicle of the Complainant was stolen from outside the residence of his cousin. Apart from intimating the police, necessary information about the loss was also given to the Opposite Party. It has been averred that pursuant to lodging a claim, the Opposite Party demanded a number of documents, which stood supplied by the Complainant, in order to process his claim. Even the untraced report was also supplied to the Opposite Party on 30.10.2014. Notwithstanding this, the claim of the Complainant was neither settled nor repudiated by the Opposite Party. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party its written statement inter alia pleading that there was delay of 02 days in intimation to the Opposite Party. The loss took place on 26.11.2012 and the claim was intimated to the Opposite Party on 28.11.2012. Even the FIR was lodged after a delay of two days. Since the Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as such, vide letter dated 31.7.2013 the claim of the Complainant was closed as no claim. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement by Opposite Party and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.
5.         Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
7.         It is the admitted case of the parties that Chevrolet Tavera bearing Regn. No. CH-02-2310 of the Complainant was insured with the Opposite Party vide insurance policy, copy of which is Annexure C-2, for the period from 08.08.2012 to 07.08.2013. It is also admitted that the car of the Complainant was stolen on the night intervening 26/27.11.2012. However, the F.I.R., copy of which is Annexure C-3, was lodged with the Police on 28.11.2012.
8.         The allegation of the Opposite Party is that the FIR was lodged after a delay of 2 days and OP-Insurance Co. was also informed about the theft of the car with a delay of 2 days. Evidently, vide Annexure C-7 and C-8 all the required documents were duly received by the Opposite Party on 4.7.2013 and 24.7.203 respectively, for the purpose of settlement of the claim. Thereafter, untraced report was duly supplied to the Opposite Party on 30.10.2014, which is evident from Annexure C-9 and C-10, respectively. The claim of the Complainant has been repudiated by the Opposite Party only due to the reason that there was delayed FIR and delayed information to the Opposite Party with regard to the theft of the insured vehicle.
9.         Pertinently, in the present case, there is a delay of 01 day only. Police usually takes time to lodge FIR, especially in the theft cases. Since the delay is negligible, which is ignorable in the present case, therefore, the genuine claim of the Complainant cannot be thrown away on account of delay that too of 01 day. If it would have been an inordinate delay, there might have some reason to disallow the claim.
10.         Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the Complainant had no control over the working and procedure of the Court and he had to wait for settlement of his claim till getting of the untraced report. Perusal of Annexure R-5 reveals that on one hand, due to non-submission of the final untraced report, which was to be issued by the Court only, the Opposite Party closed the claim of the Complainant as no claim and on the other hand, there is specific mention in the same letter (Annexure R-5) that claim could be re- considered subject to providing of the documents.
11.         In the present case, the vehicle was stolen and admittedly, the Policy was not in lapsed condition, rather premium was duly received by the Opposite Party for the insurance of the vehicle in question. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it will be appropriate for us providing a helping hand to the Complainant by allowing the present Complaint. Although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of the FIR. Therefore, in such set of circumstances, even if there is delay the same deserves to be condoned. Merely delay in lodging a Complaint cannot always give rise to a conclusion that a vehicle has been falsely implicated for the purpose of making a claim for compensation.                   
12.         In the light of above discussion, this consumer complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is directed as under :-

(i)    To pay the IDV of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Complainant.

(ii)   To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to them.

(iii)  To also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

13.         This order be complied with by Opposite Party, within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(iii) above.
14.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
23/01/2017	[S.K. Sardana]	[Mrs. Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S.Panesar]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”