Haryana

StateCommission

A/117/2015

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TARLOK SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.TAUNQUE

03 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      117 of 2015

Date of Institution:      04.02.2015

Date of Decision :       03.09.2015

 

1.     National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Deputy Manager (Legal).

 

2.      National Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Opposite Government Girls School, Railway Road, Karnal.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Tarlok Singh s/o Sh. Kishan Singh, Resident of Station Area, Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri B.S. Taunque, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Anil Shukla, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16^th December, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Karnal, whereby complaint No.224 of 2012, filed by Tarlok Singh-complainant-respondent, seeking insurable benefits with respect to his insured truck, was accepted directing the opposite parties as under:-

“……we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of sum insured after applying deprecation   clause, in terms of the insurance policy, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present complaint i.e. 3.05.2012 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to him and Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and the litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.” 

2.      The respondent-complainant got his truck bearing registration No.HR-56-2496, insured with National Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties-appellants, for the period from July 26^th, 2008 to July 25^th, 2009, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-6. The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) of the truck was Rs.4,37,500/-.

3.      During the intervening night of July 6^th/7^th, 2008, Santokh Singh-driver (brother of complainant) parked the truck on road side at Village Sarifgarh, District Kurukshetra and went to take dinner at the house of his relative Subeg Singh. After about two hours when he returned, found that the truck has already been stolen by some unknown person. He informed the Police of Police Station Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra. The Police registered F.I.R. No.331 (Exhibit C-3) on September 13^th, 2008. Information was given to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed ‘Royal Associates’ surveyor. The surveyor investigated the matter and submitted ‘Investigation Report’ Exhibit O-2, whereby the surveyor opined as under:-

“On the basis of above said findings, we are of the opinion that date, time and place of theft seems to be genuine. But truck was not locked at the time of theft, keys of truck were lying inside truck at the time of theft, which is breach of policy condition. Moreover Police was informed about 7 days after theft, where as Police should be informed immediately. Insurer may deal with claim as per terms and conditions of policy, keeping in view of above said findings. This report is issued without prejudice.”

4.      The claim being submitted, the Insurance Company did not pay the sum assured to the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.      The Insurance Company-opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply and denied the averments made in the complaint while reiterating the ground taken in the Investigation Report (Exhibit O-2).

6.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

7.      While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the driver had made statement before the Investigator that he had left the ignition key in the truck. It was further argued that the statements of the driver and other witnesses were got recorded by the investigator of the Insurance Company from Kanika d/o Sh. Tarlok Singh and while recording statements, their photographs were taken. Reference was made to Annexure A-5, A-6/1 to A-6/5 and A-6/7.

8.      The contention raised is not tenable. Though on the alleged statements name of the scribe has been mentioned as ‘Kanika’ but she is not seen in any of the photographs of the persons whose statements were allegedly taken. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot take the plea that the photographs were taken at the time of recording statements. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the statements or photographs. It has been clearly stated in the Investigation Report (Exhibit O-2) that it was a genuine case of theft of complainant’s truck. The Police was informed immediately after the truck was stolen. The delay in registering the FIR by the Police is not the fault of the complainant. It is the general practice of the Police Officials not to register FIR immediately on receipt of the complaint. At first instance the Police advise the complainant to make search instead of lodging the FIR.  When the investigator appointed by the Insurance Company who is their representative, gave report that theft is genuine, it is not open to the Insurance Company to later deny the theft and repudiate claim.

9.      Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the view that the Insurance Company has tried to deny complainant’s claim on one pretext or the other. As such, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

10.    Hence, the appeal 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 03.09.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL