ORDER
(Passed this on 18th October, 2016)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President.
01. This is a complaint regarding non settlement of insurance claim by the Opposite Party in respect of stolen vehicle.
02. The complainant owned a Honda Activa two-wheeler, which was insured with the OP for the period from 2.4.2012 to 1.4.2013. The OP had issued her only Policy Schedule cum Certificate of Insurance. The said vehicle was stolen on 10.4.2012. Immediately police report was given and FIR was registered. Since it could not be traced out further investigation was closed. On 13.9.2012 she intimated the OP and filed insurance claim with the OP. By letter dt/ 20.9.2012 she was informed by the OP that the claim was closed as NO CLAIM for delay in intimation whereby condition No.1 was violated. But no terms and conditions were supplied to her and therefore she was unaware of the same. Alleging deficiency in service of the OP, she has filed the complaint and claimed IDV of her stolen vehicle along with compensation and cost.
03. OP filed its written version at Ex.7 and admitted insurance of her vehicle. The claim for stolen vehicle was lodged after about 5 months from the incident. Therefore no survey or investigation could be conducted by it. It is denied that terms and conditions were not given to her; in fact the same are supplied with the policy certificate. By giving the intimation late she committed breach of condition No.1 and hence the claim was closed as NO CLAIM. There is no deficiency in service. It is thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
04. We have heard rival contentions and perused the policy and its terms and conditions. After giving due consideration to the same we record our findings and reasons as under.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
05. Since the complainant herself has admitted that the intimation of theft of her vehicle to the OP was given on 13.9.2012 i.e. about five months after the
theft, we have to decide only one issue as to whether she has committed breach of condition No.1. Because it is her contention that she did not receive the terms and conditions along with policy certificate. Therefore she was not aware of the same and any delay in giving intimation of theft would not amount to breach of condition. A letter dt/ 25.9. 2012 is filed on record wherebythe OP was informed about non supplying of terms and conditions with the certificte. In fact, apart from mere statement of the parties, there is no conclusive evidence to decide whether the terms and conditions were supplied to her or not. Learned counsel for the complainant therefore contended that it is the duty of the OP to show the terms and conditions were supplied to her. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP contended that till the incident of theft of her vehicle she never made complaint of not receiving the terms and conditions. She could have at least sent a letter asking for the terms and conditions of the policy. This is an afterthought allegations only to save her claim from repudiation, therefore it is submitted to reject her complaint.
06. The OP by letter reply dt/ 8.10.2012 to her letter regarding not being aware of terms and conditions, informed her that the terms and conditions are available on its website. On the policy certificate it is mentioned that terms and conditions are attached / available on the website. It does not make clear that the terms and conditions were attached with the certificate. By merely stating that the terms and conditions were supplied with the certificate will not help the OP. The consumer is not expected to see the terms and conditions on the website of the company. It is the duty of the OP to provide terms and conditions of the policy to its consumers. By not providing the same to the complainant there is deficiency in its service.
07. The case is basically defended by the OP on the sole ground of delay in giving intimation of theft of the vehicle to it. This cannot be denied that there was delay in intimating the OP and this is in contravention of the condition No.1 of the policy. Some judgments are placed on record by the counsel for the OP to support his contention. But it is not necessary to quote them. When the complainant was not provided with the terms and conditions and she was unaware of the same, her faiure to intimate immediately to the OP cannot be faulted with. We also take into consideration the fact that theft of her vehicle is not a concocted story but is a real fact. She made a genuine claim to the OP. For delayed intimation, of which she was not aware, her genuine claim should not have been closed as NO CLAIM. Had it been a case of accident then it would have been a different matter.
08. Thus considering the facts we allow the complaint. The OP made deficiency in its service in not settling the claim. Hence, we pass the
following order.
ORDER
- The complaint is partly allowed.
- The Opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs. 12,000/- (In words Rs. Twelve Thousand only) being IDV of the vehicle to the complainant.
- The OP shall also pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (In words Rs. Five Thousand only) for mental agony and litigation cost Rs.3000/- (In words Rs. Three Thousand only) to the complainant.
- The OP shall comply the order within 30 days from receipt of the order, otherwise the amount Rs.12,000/- shall carry simple interest of 9% p.a.
5)
