Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 63.

                                                          Instituted on     : 10.06.2013.

                                                          Decided on       : 10.03.2015.

Manish Jain son of Shri Suresh Jain r/o 364/34, Mohan Spinning Mill, Janta Colony, Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitarpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 

                                                          ……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.O.P.Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration no.HR-12J/1369 which was got insured with the opposite party vide policy no.102016/31/12/008132 dated 30.11.2011 to the tune of Rs.22500/-. It is averred that the alleged motorcycle of the complainant was stolen on 19.12.2011 by some unknown person and FIR No.376 was registered in P.S. Shivaji Colony, Rohtak but despite efforts made by complainant, the vehicle could not be traced. The untrace report was submitted by the police. It is averred that intimation was given to the opposite party well within time and the complainant submitted his claim with the opposite party and requested for payment of theft claim but the opposite party without any reason denied the complainant to compensate and verbally asked the complainant that his file had already been closed. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.22500/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that as per the complainant vehicle has been lost on 19.01.2011 whereas the intimation regarding the loss has been communicated to the answering opposite party on 06.01.2012 i.e. after the span of 18 days, which amounts to violation of terms and conditions.  As such the claim was repudiated as per law and violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed its evidence.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          In the present case insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed.  As per copy of FIR Ex.P2 the vehicle was stolen on 19.12.2011 and the FIR was lodged on the same day. Untraced report Ex.P3 is also placed on record. Complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R4 dated 27.01.2012 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was delay in intimating the opposite party which is breach of condition no.1 of the policy.

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that there was a delay of 18 days in intimating the company about the theft. In the present case it is observed that the theft had taken place on 19.12.2011 and the FIR was lodged on the same day. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in III(2008) CPJ 459 titled Ridhi Gupta Vs. NIC whereby Hon’ble Delhi State Commission , New Delhi has held that: “Insurance-Theft-Information to police in any form, including DD report, sufficient requirement-Once report lodged with police in any form, Insurance Company barred from appointing investigator to investigate, whether theft took place or not”, as per 2014(2)CLT 386 titled Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram Hon’ble State Commission has also held that:  “In case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane-The delay of 15 days is not significant in such a case.”, as per 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Delay of 12 days in intimation to insurance company-There may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim, which is otherwise proved to be genuine” and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2011-4PLR titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma has held that : “Merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform the petitioner-company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim and it is further held that Insurance companies are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium-Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the repudiation of claim by the opposite party on the ground of delayed intimation to the insurance company is not genuine and the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle which as per policy document Ex.P1 is Rs.22500/-.

 8.                        In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite party shall pay the insured declared value of vehicle i.e. Rs.22500/-(Rupees twenty two thousand five hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.06.2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. transfer of R.C. & Subrogation letter etc. to the opposite party failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision.  Complaint is allowed accordingly.

9.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

10.                        File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

10.03.2015.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.