Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/146/2012

Girish Chander S/o Leela Nand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Neera Jain

19 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 146  of  2012.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 10.02.2012.

                                                                                              Date of decision: 19.02.2016.

Shri Girish Chander son of Shri Leela Nand, resident of 511, Sector-18, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Shriram General Insurance Company, E-18, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur through its Managing Director.
2. Shriram General Insurance Company, branch office at Gobindpuri Road, Jagadhri through its Branch Director.  

 

                                                                                                                                                        … Respondents. 

                         

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Smt. Neera Jain, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Ajay Shakti Goyal, Advocate, counsel for OPs. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Girish Chander filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking directions to the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) to make the payment of full sum assured on account of theft of his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02N-6235 and further to pay Rs. 100,000/- as compensation for loss of monetary loss and mental and physical agony and torture.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he is the registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02N-6235, which was insured with the OPs vide policy bearing No. 102017/31/11/004888 valid from 25.10.2010 to 24.10.2011 for a sum assured of Rs. 23,000/- and a premium of Rs. 811/- was paid in this regard to the OPs.  It has been further stated that the aforesaid insurance policy covered the risk of theft also. It has been further alleged that on 29.4.2011, the said motorcycle of complainant was stolen by somebody from the Gaba Hospital which he parked there after locking. The complainant moved an application to the concerned police station and in this regard  FIR bearing No. 212 dated 29.4.2011 (Annexure C-2) under section 379 IPC was got registered with police station City, Yamuna Nagar. The complainant informed the OPs Insurance Company regarding the theft of his motorcycle immediately and submitted all the relevant documents of his stolen vehicle as and when required by the OPs but till date the Ops have not adhered to sanction the claim of stolen vehicle of the complainant. The complainant made representation to Op No.1 on 28.1.2012 explaining the whole situation and for sanction of his claim but of no use and he has been running from pillar to post and also visited the office of OPs but they did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and failed to settle the genuine claim, hence there is a great deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant is entitled to get the insured amount alongwith compensation and litigation expenses as prayed above. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable,  no locus standi, estopped from filing the present complaint, complaint is false and frivolous, no negligence or deficiency in service and on merit it has been mentioned that the theft took place on 29.4.2011 but a belated intimation dated 7.5.2011 i.e. after 8 days of the alleged theft was given. The insured was bound to give immediate intimation as per the terms and condition No.1 of the insurance policy. As such it is a clear cut violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the claim in question is not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy being not payable. Therefore, the claim was legally and justifiably repudiated vide letter dated 17.1.2012 (Annexure R-1) and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove his case, counsel for the complainant  has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of insurance cover note as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of FIR Annexure C-2, Photo copy of Untracebale report as annexure C-3, Photo copy of letter dated 13.10.2011 as annexure C-4, Photo copy of repudiation letter dated 17.1.2012 as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of letter dated 26.3.2011 as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of letter dated 7.6.2011 as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of letter dated 28.1.2012 as Annexure C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                    On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajendra Sharma, authorized signatory Shriram Gen. Ins. as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of repudiation letter dated 17.1.2012 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of claim investigation report dated 1.11.2011 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of claim form as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of letter dated 18.10.2011 as Annexure R-4,  Photo copy of letter dated 10.5.2011 as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of intimation letter dated 26.5.2011 as Annexure R-6, Copy of two wheeler package policy as Annexure R-7, Copy of insurance certificate cum policy schedule as Annexure R-8  and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully.  Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite party reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     It is admitted fact that the complainant was registered owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02N-6235 and it was insured with the OPs vide policy bearing No. 102017/31/11/004888 valid from 25.10.2010 to 24.10.2011 for a sum assured of Rs. 23,000/- and a premium of Rs. 811/- was paid in this regard to the OPs which was stolen by some unknown person on 29.4.2011 during the currency of insured policy in question. It is also admitted that regarding theft of Motor Cycle an FIR No. 212 dated 29.4.2011 (Annexure C-2) was lodged with the police of P.S. City, Yamuna Nagar.

 8.                    The only plea of the insurance company is that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 17.1.2012 (Annexure R-1/C-5) as the alleged theft took place on 29.4.2011 whereas the OPs insurance company was intimated on 7.5.2011 i.e. after 8 days of the alleged theft which is clearly violation of the terms and conditions No.1 of the insurance policy, according to which the insured was duty bound to give immediate intimation to the insurance company and referred the case law titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane, First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009  wherein it has been observed that in the case of theft “where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the policy as it deprives the insurers of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle.”  

  

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the complainant hotly argued that the genuine claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated on the flimsy ground by the OPs insurance company. The motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02N-6235 was stolen by somebody on 29.4.2011 and the complainant immediately informed the police of P.s. city, Yamuna Nagar which is evident from the FIR  Annexure C-2. It has been further argued that all the information sought by the OPs insurance company was duly clarified by the complainant from time to time vide letters Annexure C-6 & C-8 in which it has been specifically clear that the insurance cover note was in the tool box of motorcycle in question and he did not know the name of insurer and he contacted with his agent who told him the name of insurer and then he informed the OPs. Further, the learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the untraceable report issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar vide its order dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure C-3). To substantiate the aforesaid version, the complainant’s counsel submitted the case law delivered by our Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in case titled as Mohammad Ejaj Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Others, reported in 2014(4) CLT page 161 wherein it has been held that “Insurance Claim-Repudiation- on the ground that there was delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR and 36 days in giving information to the Insurance Company-IRDA have given direction to the insurance companies not to reject genuine claims simply because of late registration of FIR and late intimation to the Insurance Company- Held-IRDA is the controlling authority of all Insurance Companies and being a statutory body, is competent to frame guidelines and issue instructions to Insurance Companies which are binding upon them. Appeal accepted. Learned counsel for the complainant further referred the Instruction of IRDA “That the insurer cannot reject claims amount for delay in intimation”

10.                   After going through the above noted facts at length we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by the OPs insurance company on the ground that the intimation was given to the insurance company after 8 days from the alleged theft and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the OPs on this point is not tenable as the IRDA has clearly mentioned in the instructions that the insurer cannot reject claims amount for delay in intimation” The authorities (supra) tendered by the OP are not disputed but not helpful in the present case whereas on the other hand in case titled as Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram 2014(2) CLT page 386 Hon’ble State Commission it has also held that “ in case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane- A delay of 15 days is not significant in such a case”. As per case law titled as Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar, 2014(2) CLT page 390 Hon’ble State Commission Haryana, Panchkula has held that “ Delay of 12 days in intimation to the insurance company- 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, which is otherwise proved to be genuine”. Even Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court 2011-4 PLR National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma has held that “merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform petitioner-Company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim and it is further held that Insurance Companies are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium- Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other” 

11.                   In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been observed that the repudiation of the claim by the OPs Insurance Company on the ground of delay intimation to the Insurance Company is not justified and the OPs Insurance Company is liable to pay the claim amount as per IDV of vehicle i.e. Rs. 23,000/-.

12                    Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs Insurance Company to pay the insured amount of Rs. 23,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 19.02.2016.

                                                                                          ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER