Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 696
Instituted on : 16.12.2019.
Decided on : 09.06.2023.
Paramjit age 23 years s/o Ramesh Kumar r/o Village-Ghillaur Kalan, Teh. & Distt. Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited 301-308, 3rtd Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2 Road No.44 Near M2K Cinema, Rani bagh, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110034 through its Manager.
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Naraina Complex, 2nd floor, Civil Road, Near Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Ramesh Deswal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of motorcycle Hero Splendor bearing No. HR-12F-5564 bearing Engine no.HR10AGJHBE 2391 Chassis no.MBLHAR070JHB71306. The alleged vehicle was duly got insured with the opposite parties for the period from 23.03.2018 to 21.03.2019. The aforesaid vehicle of the complainant was got stolen on 30.06.2018. Complainant immediately informed the police and an FIR No.298 dated 30.06.2018 was registered with P.S.Urban Estate Rohtak u/s 379 IPC. The complainant just after two days of theft had intimated to the officials of the opposite parties about the said theft and also submitted all the required documents and completed all the required formalities alongwith insurance policy, un-trace report, and copy of FIR. Complainant visited the office of opposite parties many times and they asked the complainant to approach their north zone office at Pitam Pura New Delhi. The complainant sent the respondents an application regarding theft of his motorcycle vide registered post on 26.09.2019 but till date, he has not received any response from the respondents. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 24.10.2019 but any heed was not paid by the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.49098/- alongwith interest, compensation of Rs.100000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that present complaint is not maintainable since immediately on receipt of the claim on 26.03.2019 i.e. 269 days after the alleged loss, it was duly registered, entertained and processed. During processing, the answering opposite party appointed an independent investigator, M/s Perfect Investigators to investigate the loss. During investigations, it was noted that the intimation of alleged loss was given to the insurance company after a gap of 269 days without giving a reasonable justification about the said delay, which stand in violation of insurance policy condition No.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 27.06.2022. Learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, documents Ex. R1 and thereafter failed to conclude it evidence. As such evidence of opposite parties was closed by the order dated 29.05.2023 of this Commission.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that there was delay of 269 days in giving intimation to the opposite parties about the theft and the same fact has been mentioned in the affidavit and written statement filed by the opposite parties. No other document has been placed on record by the opposite parties. On the other hand, as per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, he has submitted that he informed the police about the theft immediately and to the opposite parties only after 2 days of theft and also sent a written letter dated 26.09.2019 to the opposite parties. In the present case, the vehicle in question was got stolen on 30.06.2018 and the FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. 30.06.2018, which is proved from the copy of police report with Ex.C3. Copy of untraced report Ex.C2 is also placed on record. But the opposite parties in para no.5 of preliminary objections of their written statement has taken the ground that there was delay of 269 days in giving intimation to the opposite parties regarding the theft and the same is violation of terms and condition No.1 of the policy. Regarding the delayed intimation to the company, we have placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no.1069 of 2022 decided on 11.02.2022 titled as Jaina Construction Company Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, Civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 decided on 13.09.2021 in case titled as Dharamender Vs. UIIC, as well as Civil Appeal no.653 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 in case titled as Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that: “When insured lodged FIR immediately after theft of a vehicle occurred and when police after investigation have lodged a final report after vehicle was not traced and when surveyors/investigators appointed by insurance company found claim of theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be a ground to deny claim-Lodging of FIR on same day theft occurred-Therefore, denial of claim set aside”. In Jaina Constructions, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “In the instant case, the FIR was lodged immediately on the next day of the occurrence of theft of the vehicle by the complainant. The accused were also arrested and charge sheeted, however, the vehicle could not be traced out. Of course, it is true that there was a delay of about five months on the part of the complainant in informing and lodging its claim before the Insurance Company, nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the Insurance Company has not repudiated the claim on the ground that it was not genuine. It has repudiated only on the ground of delay. When the complainant had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle, and when the police after the investigation had arrested the accused and also filed challan before the concerned Court, and when the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft”. The law cited above are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as in the present case also, FIR was lodged on the same day of theft. Moreover, opposite parties in their written statement have submitted that they had appointed an independent investigator, M/s Perfect Investigators to investigate the loss but the insurance company has failed to place on record any survey report or investigation report before this Commission. In fact just after receiving the claim intimation, it is the prime duty of the insurance company to depute an investigator or surveyor to assess the loss or to investigate the matter. But in the present case the insurance company failed to place on record both the reports. No doubt, there is delay of 269 days in lodging the claim with the opposite party. But on this ground alone and in view of the above referred law of Hon’ble Supreme Court, whole claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated. Hence the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such opposite parties are liable to pay the IDV of the vehicle after deducting the 10% value on it. As per cover note Ex.C5, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.49098/-. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay the amount of Rs.44190/-(Rs.49098/- less 10% value i.e. Rs.4908/-(rounded off).
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.44190/-(Rupees forty four thousand one hundred and ninety only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 16.12.2019 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to complete the formalities i.e. to submit the signed form no.29-30, indemnity bond and subrogation letter in favour of the company within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite parties shall comply with the order dated 09.06.2023 of this Commission. Complainant is also directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
09.06.2023
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
............................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
