Haryana

StateCommission

A/900/2016

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH AGGARWAL - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.BEDI

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    900 of 2016

Date of Institution:    29.09.2016

Date of Decision :     27.10.2016

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Rewari, through its duly constituted attorney at Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.                                                                    

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Suresh Aggarwal s/o Shri Babu Lal Aggarwal, Resident of House No.645, Kayasthwara Street, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                      Respondent-complainant

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri P.S. Bedi, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated April 29^th, 2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.316 of 2011. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…..the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay the insured declared value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.60,598/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment maximum within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The complainant is also allowed compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses which are quantified at Rs.5500/- against the opposite party.

2.                Suresh Aggarwal-complainant/respondent, got his motor cycle No.HR-36M-9913, insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/appellant, for the period February 24^th, 2010 to February 23^rd, 2011. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) was Rs.60,598/-. The motor cycle was stolen during the intervening night of 29^th/30^th July, 2010. F.I.R. No.196 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was lodged in Police Station, City Rewari on 6^th August, 2010. The Insurance Company was also informed. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 17^th June, 2011 on the ground that there was delay of 8 days in lodging FIR and 12 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

3.                The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that through the motor cycle was alleged to have been stolen during the intervening night of 29^th/30^th July, 2010, however FIR was lodged after 8 days and intimation was given after 12 days and thus the complainant-respondent violated condition No.1 of the insurance policy.

4.                The contention is not tenable. In 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 mentioned that genuine claims should not be rejected on account of delay in intimation, and that, the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on “sound logic” and “valid grounds”.  In the case in hand, although the Insurance Company has pleaded that there was delay of 8 days in lodging FIR and 12 days in giving intimation but to prove the same no evidence worth the name has been led. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymanshu International, (1979) 4 SCC 176, deprecated the practice often adopted by the Insurance Companies of denying 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.

5.                In view of the above, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

6.                Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

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

 

 

Announced: 27.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL