Haryana

StateCommission

A/603/2016

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.SAINI

01 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    603 of 2016

Date of Institution:    05.07.2016

Date of Decision :     01.03.2017

 

1.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Service Hub Delhi, Regional Office-1, 8^th Floor, Kanchanjanga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi through its duly constituted attorney Smt. Sunita Sharma, Deputy Manager.

 

2.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, near Deswal Food Point Jhajjar, through its duly constituted attorney Smt. Sunita Sharma, Deputy Manager. 

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Versus

1.      Sunder Singh s/o Sh. Har Narayan, Resident of Village Akehari Madanpur, Tehsil Salhawas, District Jhajjar.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, SCO 3, 2^nd Floor, near Punjab and Sind Bank, Brass Market, Rewari, District Rewari, through Manager.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.3

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri P. S. Saini, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri S.C. Thatai, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

         This appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated May 18^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.126 of 2015. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“……we allow the complaint of complainant and direct the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to make the payment of claim/insured declared value of Rs.4,83,600/- to the complainant along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft i.e. 9.1.2012 till realization of final payment to the complainant subject to transfer of R.C. and subrogation letter in the name of respondents company by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

 

2.                Sunder Singh-complainant/respondent No.1 was owner of vehicle (Mahindra Bolero) bearing registration No.HR-63B-1664. It was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (appellants) for the period November 8^th, 2011 to November 7^th, 2012 vide Insurance Policy Exhibit P-2. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.4,83,600/-. The vehicle was stolen on January 9^th, 2012 in the area of Bansur, District Alwar. Information (Exhibit P-5) was given to the Police Control Room, Alwar. The Police Control Room immediately flashed a V.T. message to all the Station House Officers, Incharge Police Posts and PCRs etc.  First Information Report (FIR) No.24 (Exhibit P-4) was lodged in Police Station, Bansur, District Alwar. The Police submitted untraced Report in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Behrod, District Alwar. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the insured amount. He filed complaint (No.140 of 2012) before the District Forum.  The District Forum vide order dated November 8^th, 2013 dismissed complaint on the ground that the complainant had not furnished the required documents to the Insurance Company and directed him to supply the same to the Insurance Company.  The complainant submitted the relevant documents but despite that the Insurance Company did not pay the insured amount.  Hence, the instant complaint was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The Insurance Company in its written version took the plea that the vehicle was stolen on January 9^th, 2012; FIR was lodged on January 12^th, 2012 and the Insurance Company was informed on November 13^th, 2013. There was delay of 4 days in lodging of the FIR and 22 months in giving intimation to the Insurance Company.  It was further stated that at the time of theft, the vehicle was left unattended and the ignition key was also left in the vehicle. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised three fold arguments. Firstly, that the vehicle was stolen due to the negligence of its driver because he left the ignition key in the vehicle. Secondly, that the vehicle was stolen on January 9^th, 2012; F.I.R. was lodged on January 12^th, 2012 and thirdly the Insurance Company was informed on November 13^th, 2013. There was delay of 4 days in lodging the FIR and 22 months in giving intimation to the Insurance Company.

6.                The contention raised is not tenable.  Indisputably, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and stolen on January 9^th, 2012, that is, during the subsistence of the insurance policy.  In the F.I.R. (Exhibit P-4) it has been clearly mentioned that on January 9^th, 2012, Sunder Singh son of the complainant, was driving the vehicle in the area of District Alwar. At that time Sandeep Resident of Akeri Madanpur, District Jhajjar and Vijay son of Ghasi Ram, Resident of Bhagvi, Police Station Dadri were also travelling in the vehicle. Both these persons, that is, Sandeep and Vijay were known to the driver-Sunder Singh.  When the vehicle reached near Village Mothuka, the driver stopped the vehicle on road side.  The driver and Sandeep went for urination.  In the mean time, the vehicle was stolen by Vijay son of Ghasi Ram, who was already sitting in the vehicle.  This being so, it cannot be said that the driver had left the vehicle un-attended because a person known to him was sitting in the vehicle. More so, there is no mention in the FIR (Exhibit P-4) that the ignition key was left in the vehicle.

7.                Coming now to the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that there was delay of 4 days in lodging of the FIR.  The vehicle was stolen on January 9^th, 2012. The complainant has placed on record the V.T. message of the same date, that is, January 9^th, 2012 (Exhibit P-5), which was flashed by the Police Control Room and received in Police Station, Bansur, District Alwar, with respect to the theft of vehicle (Bolero) bearing registration No.HR-63B-1664, that is, the vehicle of the complainant. The Police recorded F.I.R. (Exhibit P-4) on January 12^th, 2012. Thus, the delay in recording the F.I.R. was not the fault of the complainant and it was for the Police to register the F.I.R. immediately.

8.                So far as the plea of the Insurance Company that there was delay of 22 months in giving intimation, no evidence worth the name has been led by the Insurance Company. It is the stand of the Insurance Company that intimation was given by the complainant on November 13^th, 2013 whereas the truth is otherwise. The Insurance Company was well aware about complainant’s claim much prior to November 13^th, 2013 because in the earlier complaint No.140 qua the same incident which was filed on July 11^th, 2012 and decided on November 8^th, 2013, the Insurance Company had opposed complainant’s claim. This being so, the plea of the Insurance Company that the information was given by the complainant on November 13^th, 2013, stands falsified.

9.                In view of the above, it is proved to the hilt that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on January 9^th, 2012 the information of which was given to the Police immediately and F.I.R. (Exhibit P-4) was lodged. The Police submitted the untraced report. The Insurance Company was also informed. The evidence led by the complainant has proved that it was a genuine claim of the complainant. It is unfortunate that the insurer takes such flimsy pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. It will be in the interest of justice that the insurer should not rely upon pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants which are otherwise well founded.

10.              For the reasons recorded supra, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

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 01.03.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Balbir Singh Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL