Haryana

StateCommission

A/341/2016

TATA AIG GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.SHARMA

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

 

 

                                                          First Appeal No  :      341 of 2016

Date of Institution:     20.04.2016

Date of Decision :      20.01.2017

 

 

 

 

TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 301-308, 3^rd Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2, Road No.44, Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110034 through its Authorized Officer Sh. Mohd. Azhar Wasi, Head North Zone Claims, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, SCO 232-234, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Surender Kumar son of Brahm Dutt, resident of Village Rohad, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member  

 

 

 

 

 

Argued:                Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for appellant

                             None for the complainant

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) is in appeal against the order dated February 11^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Surender Kumar-complainant was allowed.  Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from November 15^th, 2013, that is, the date of theft of truck bearing registration No.HR46F-5655, till realization and Rs.5500/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.      Notice was issued to the complainant on July 15^th, 2016.  Shri S.P. Chahar, Advocate appeared for the complainant.  The case was adjourned to November 17^th, 2016 for arguments but on the request of proxy counsel for the complainant, the case was adjourned to January 20^th, 2017 for arguments.  Today, nobody appeared on behalf of the complainant. This Commission thinks it appropriate to decide the appeal on merits after hearing learned counsel for the Insurance Company and going through the case file.

3.      The truck was owned by the complainant was insured with the Insurance Company for the period February 28^th, 2013 to February 27^th, 2014. On the intervening night of November 14^th/15^th, 2013, the truck was stolen. The complainant lodged First Information Report No.584 dated November 17^th, 2013 with the Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh. The Insurance Company was also informed. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the grounds that the complainant left the vehicle unattended; there was a delay of two days in lodging of FIR and four days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Forum.

4.      Apart from the grounds taken in the repudiation letter dated August 20^th, 2014, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that the Insured Declared Value of the truck was Rs.7,00,000/- whereas the District Forum awarded Rs.7,50,000/- to the complainant.  

5.      It is not in dispute that the truck was stolen on the intervening night of November 14^th/15^th, 2013.  A perusal of First Information Report (Exhibit R-6) shows that the complainant tried his level best to trace out the vehicle but he did not find any clue in this respect. Thus, the complainant has satisfactorily explained the delay of two days in lodging the FIR.  Secondly, the complainant also stated in the FIR that he parked the truck in his plot after getting it properly locked.  Thirdly, the Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to prove that the complainant intimated the Insurance Company after four days of the occurrence. The complainant cannot be deprived of the benefits of insurance.  Insurance Companies are denying the claims on technical pleas, even though the claims lodged with them are otherwise well founded. It is unfortunate that the insurer takes such a plea to defeat the genuine claim of the insured. The insurer should not rely upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of claimants. 

6.      Now the question remains for consideration that to how much amount the complainant is entitled? 

7.      It is the own case of complainant that the IDV of the truck was Rs.7,00,000/-.  Besides this, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also placed on record photocopy of Certificate of Insurance and Policy Schedule (Annexure A-5) in which the IDV of truck is mentioned Rs.7,00,000/-.  This being so, the District Forum fell in error in granting compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- instead of Rs.7,00,000/-  In view of this, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of theft, that is, November 14^th/15^th, 2013 till realization and Rs.5500/- litigation expenses to the complainant.  The complainant is directed to execute the letter of subrogation, hand over the keys of the truck and transfer the Registration Certificate in the name of the Insurance Company and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose.  The appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

 

Announced 20.01.2017

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

   UK