Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 476.
Instituted on : 17.08.2017.
Decided on : 10.06.2019.
Dishant age (25 years) s/o Sh. Devender R/o H.No.476, Ward no.18, Ravidass Nagar, Near Chand Ram Ki Kothi, Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 301-308, Third Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2, Road No.44, Near M2K Cinema Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 through its Manager/Authorized Person.
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company, 2nd Floor, Narayan Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
- M.G.Motor, Hissar Bye Pass, Rohtak through its M.D.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Pardeep Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 2.
Opposite party No.3 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle TATA Magic IRIS bearing registration No. HR-16N-4345, which was got insured with the OP No.1 vide policy No. 0155616051 for the period from 30.12.2015 to 29.12.2016 That IDV value of said vehicle as per policy is Rs.170940/-. That in the intervening night of 17-18.09.2016, the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen by some unknown person. That on 18.09.2016, the complainant made a call at 100 number and gave information to the concerned police and tried his level best to trace the vehicle. That complainant also gave intimation to the opposite party on dated 18.06.2016 by personally visiting the office of opposite parties and lodged FIR No.677 dated 20.09.2016. That complainant also submitted documents to the opposite parties. But the complainant stunned down to see letter dated 20.01.2017 issued by the opposite parties as per which the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the intimation delayed by 7 days whereas the complainant gave the immediate intimation to the police as well as to the opposite parties. That the act of opposite parties is highly illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.170940/- as IDV of vehicle alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its accrual till realization, Rs.100,000/- as compensation and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply submitted that complainant has failed to provide any documentary proof regarding any call being made by the complainant to the police at 100 number. The contents regarding FIR No.677 dated 20.09.2016 being lodged, after 2 days from the alleged theft is correct as per the documents provided by the complainant. That the claim was intimated to the company at their call centre on 24.09.2016 i.e. after a gap of 7 days of alleged theft which is clear violation of policy condition no.1. That the opposite party deputed investigator who observed that the vehicle in question has been stolen with access to original ignition key as the same was left inside the ignition point of the vehicle which is violation of policy condition no.4. That the claim has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 20.01.2017 of the opposite party as there is unexplained delay of 7 days in intimating answering opposite party. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW11 and has closed his evidence on dated 19.07.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and has closed his evidence on dated 14.01.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present complaint, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the claim was not intimated within time to the respondent insurance company. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid down in Civil Appeal no.1217-18 of 2017 decided on 21.08.2018 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Revision Petition No.2405 of 2016 decided on 09.01.2018 by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi in Reliance General Ins. Co. Vs. Daljeet Singh Kashmeer Singh Batth. In the present case, the loss occurred on 04.08.2004, whereas the matter was reported with the insurance company on 30.11.2004, but in case in hand, the theft was taken place during the intervening night of 17/18-09.2016 and the matter was informed to the police station on the same day and FIR was registered on 20.09.2016. After obtaining the documents from the police station, the respondent officials were intimated regarding the theft on 24.09.2016. This fact has been proved by the insurance company in the letter Ex.C5, wherein it has been mentioned that the matter was reported with the insurance company on 24.09.2016 meaning thereby, the complainant has submitted all the documents alongwith the copy of FIR with insurance company within 6 days from the date of theft. Meaning thereby, there is no delay on the part of complainant in giving intimation to the insurance company. In this regard, ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the ration of law laid down in Jagjit Singh Vs. M/s Cholamandalam MS General Ltd.. We have also placed reliance upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula dated 20.09.2018 decided by Hon’ble Justice Nawab Singh titled as Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljeet Singh and order dated 20.08.2018 decided by Hon’ble Judicial Member Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary titled as Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs. Balwant Rai whereby the Hon’ble State Commission has held that: “It is very clear from the circular of IRDA that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. The decision of insurers to reject a claim of the claimant should be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute”. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the cases, it is observed that the act of opposite party of repudiating the claim of complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. At the time of arguments, ld.counsel for the complainant has submitted that the loan amount has been paid by the complainant to the financer and has also placed on record copy of HPA termination agreement as Ex.CX to Ex.CZ in additional evidence.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 to pay the IDV of the vehicle as shown in policy schedule Ex.CW3 i.e. Rs.170940/-(Rupees one lac seventy thousand nine hundred forty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.08.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
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:
10.06.2019.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………
Ved Pal, Member
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
