Haryana

StateCommission

A/857/2015

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUDHIR KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

D.C.KUMAR

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      857 of 2015

Date of Institution:      08.10.2015

Date of Decision :       14.03.2016

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jawahar Market, Model Town, Rohtak, through Shri S.P. Singh, Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, LIC Building, II Floor, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Shri Sudhir Kumar s/o Sh. Rishi Ram, House No.759/17, Mahajan Parao Approach Road, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri D.C. Kumar, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of Opposite Party’s is directed against the order dated September 9^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.80 of 2013.

2.      Sudhir Kumar-complainant/respondent, got his car bearing registration No.HR 70A-8646, insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/appellant, for the period June 23^rd, 2011 to June 22^nd, 2012. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the car was Rs.7.00 lacs.

3.      On September 13^th, 2011, the car was stolen in the area of Sampla. F.I.R. No.346 (Exhibit C-3) was lodged in Police Station Sampla on the same day, that is, September 13^th, 2011. On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed investigator. The Investigator submitted report Exhibit R-6. Untraced Report was submitted and the same was accepted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, vide order Exhibit C-4. Claim being filed, was repudiated by the Insurance Company vide letter dated September 27^th, 2012 (Exhibit C-1). Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The Insurance Company in its reply denied the claim of the complainant stating that the car was stolen on September 13^th, 2011 and intimation was given on September 27^th, 2011, that is, after 14 days. It was further stated that prior to the date of theft, the car was sold by the complainant to Bhupinder Singh son of Vijay Kumar and therefore, the complainant had no insurable interest in the car. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“….it is observed that opposite party shall pay the I.D.V. of vehicle i.e. Rs.700000/- (Rupees seven lac only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.06.2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26,28,29,30,35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc to the opposite party failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has assailed the order of the District Forum raising argument that there was delay of 14 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company and that on the date of theft, the complainant was not the owner of the vehicle as he had already sold the vehicle to one Bhupinder Singh.

7.      So far as the contention raised with respect to the delay of 14 days in giving intimation; it would be appropriate to refer to the Circular Ref: IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/ CIR/ 216/ 09/ 2011 dated September 20^th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short ‘IRDA’). It has been specifically mentioned in the above said circular by IRDA that 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.  The operative part of the circular reads as under:-

 “The Authority has been receiving several complaints that claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission of intimation and documents.

The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.”

8.      It is not disputed that the car was stolen on September 13^th, 2011 and FI.R. Exhibit C-3, was lodged on the same day. On being informed, the Insurance Company had appointed the Investigator who submitted report Exhibit R-6. The Police submitted untraced report and the same was accepted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, vide order Exhibit C-4.  Thus, it is evidently established that the car of the complainant was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. No cogent evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company to prove that there was delay in giving intimation by the complainant.  In view of this, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is repelled.

9.      Coming now to the other argument that the car was sold by the complainant to one Bhupinder Singh, prior to the date of theft. In National insurance Company Limited versus Ram Chandra Dhobi, III(2008) CPJ 287, Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, held that since registration certificate and insurance policy were in the name of transferee/complainant, he was entitled to the benefits of insurance.  This case is fully covered by Ram Chandra Dhobi’s case (Supra). Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot deny to indemnify the complainant with respect to the loss of insured car.

10.    For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is devoid of merits. It is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 14.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL