Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/114/2012

Jarnail Singh S/o Paitu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 114  of  2012.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 31.1.2012

                                                                                              Date of decision: 28.8.2015.

Jarnail Singh son of Shri Paitu Ram, resident of village Makhour, P.O. Marwa Khurd, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                                               Versus

1. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. having office at 116, Model Colony, Opposite Nirankari Bhavan, Yamuna Nagar, through its authorized officer.
2. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Claim Department SCO No.14, 4^th Floor, U.E. Sector-5, Panchkula through its Authorized Officer.
3. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. having its Regional and Head Office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006 through its Managing Director/Chairman.
4. Jamuna Agency, Authorized S.S.P Hero V & P.O. Bilaspur-135102, District Yamuna Nagar Haryana through its Proprietor/Authorized person.     

 

                                                                                                                                                                    … Opposite parties.

 

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Surjeet Singh Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              OPs No.1 & 4 already ex-parte.

              Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2 & 3.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Jarnail Singh filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pass the claim amount of  Rs. 18000/- alongwith Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and financial loss and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present case are that complainant had got insured his vehicle i..e motorcycle make Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No. HR-02L-6773 for a sum of Rs. 18000/- vide policy No. OG-10-1207-1802-00003570 having validity from 23.9.2009 to 22.9.2010. The said motorcycle was stolen on 7.4.2010 when it was parked at cycle stand Government College Chhahhrauli. Intimation in this regard was given to the police station, Chhchhrauli and an FIR No. 44 dated 12.4.2010 was registered under section 379 IPC. The complainant also informed about the same to the OPs company on 7.4.2010 and supplied them all the necessary documents alongwith key of the motorcycle and thereafter the OPs have given claim No. OC-12-1201-1802-00000308 for further necessary action. However, complainant contacted the OPs several times but they did not pay any heed to his genuine request and last he received a letter  dated 19.12.2011 from the OPs in which they repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the documents submitted by the complainant are not found to be satisfactory. After receiving the letter dated 19.12.2011, the complainant contacted the OPs to release the claim as per policy but they did not accede to the genuine request of the complainant and flatly refused to redress the grievances of complainant without stating any sufficient reasons. Thereafter, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 5.1.2012 to the OPs to release the amount of claim but the OP No.1 refused to receive the notice deliberately. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has to face financial loss, mental agony and harassment which amounts to deficiency in service on their part as the OPs have illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 refused to receive summons, hence it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.8.2012 whereas OP No.4 served through registered post but none appeared on behalf of OP No.4, hence it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 4.10.2012. OPs No.2 & 3 appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as maintainability, no negligence or deficiency in service and on merit it is submitted that intimation regarding theft of motorcycle was given to the company on 17.9.2011 i.e. after a gap of 528 days of  alleged theft whereas motorcycle was stolen on 7.4.2010 and FIR was got registered on 12.4.2010 i.e. after five days of alleged theft. This violates the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 19.12.2011. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the claim has been rightly repudiated by the OPs and prayer for dismissal of the complaint.    

4.                     To prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of FIR as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of repudiation letter dated 19.12.2011 as Annexure C-2, Copy of Legal Notice dated 5.1.2012 as Annexure C-3, Postal receipts as Annexure C-4 to C-7, Envelope as Annexure C-8 and closed his evidence.

5.                                 On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sachin Ohri as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of intimation No. 40314694 dated 17.9.2011 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of FIR as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of letter dated 1.11.2011 as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of letter dated 22.11.2011 written by complainant as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of repudiation letter dated 19.12.2011 as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions as Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully.  Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     Admittedly, the motorcycle of the complainant was insured with the OPs vide policy No. CG-10-1207-1802-00003570 Annexure R-6 effective from 23.9.2009 to 22.9.2010 for a sum of Rs. 18000/- in the name of Jarnail Singh complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the motorcycle in question was stolen on 7.4.2010 during the subsistence of the policy and claim lodged by the complainant was not honoured by the opposite parties whereas it is the case of the OPs No.2 & 3 that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy as the theft had taken place on 7.4.2010 and FIR was lodged on 12.4.2010 i.e. after 5 days. Even the intimation was given to the opposite parties in the month of September, 2011 after a gap of more than one year five months i.e. 528 days.  As the FIR has been lodged after 5 days and intimation was given after one year five months, hence the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Learned counsel or Ops referred the case law titled as Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil, 2015 (3) CLT page 90 (N.C) and another case law titled as H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Bhagchand Saini, 1(2015) CPJ page 206 (N.C.) have weight as delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft would be violation of condition of the policy as it deprives insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to commission of theft and to help in tracing the vehicle. Moreover, in the policy, it has been specifically mentioned that claim for theft of the vehicle not payable if theft not reported to the company within 48 hours of its occurrence. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Om Parkash vs. National Insurance company Ltd. 2012(III) CPJ Page 59 has observed that “ Insurance-theft of vehicle-Delay in intimation-Claim repudiated-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint- State Commission allowed appeal-Hence revision-terms and conditions of insurance policy are required to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity-Even delay of few days in not intimating Insurance Company about incident of theft is fatal-insured looses its right to be indemnified when he himself is not vigilant about his rights and his obligations in regarding to compliance of terms and conditions of policy-impugned order upheld”.

8.                      Further in the case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 has observed in the case of theft “where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the policy as it deprives the insurers of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle.”  

9                      In another case titled as HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhagchand Saini (supra) observed that Insurance-Theft of vehicle- Delay in intimation-Violation of conditions of policy-Claim repudiated-alleged deficiency in service- District Forum allowed complaint- State Commission dismissed appeal-Hence revision-Delay of about 4 months in giving intimation to Insurance Company- Insurance contract is a contract of indemnity-Violation of conditions has to be taken into account- Complainant is not entitled for any compensation even on ‘non-standard’ basis- Complaint dismissed. Revision petition allowed.

 10                   Further in case titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil (N.C) has observed that Insurance Claim-theft of car- Insured intimated the insurer regarding theft of his car after 39 days of the accident-Held- Insured has violated the mandatory terms and conditions of the insurance policy-revision petition allowed.

11.                   On the other hand, counsel for the complainant argued that the motorcycle of the complainant was stolen by unknown persons and he lodged his claim immediately after completing all the formalities but the OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant on false and flimsy ground. The counsel for the complainant referred the case laws titled as Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010(1) CPC page 653 (S.C.), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Bhupinder Singh, 2013(2) CPC (N.C.), B. Shantilal & Co. (deceased) & others versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another, 2012(1) CPC page 55 (N.C) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Bhupinder Singh, 2013(2) CPC Page 314 (N.C.) wherein it has been held that in case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not relevant-Claim should be settled on non standard basis by making 75% payment of the amount.

12.                   In the present case, it is admitted fact that vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OPs and the same was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy and the FIR was registered on 12.4.2010 i.e. after five days but the complainant has not mentioned in his complaint when information was given to the OPs. However, he has written in his complaint that the information was given to the OPs immediately but this plea is not supported by any credible evidence because from the perusal of Annexure R-1, it reveals that the intimation was given to the insurance company only in the month of September, 2011 i.e. after a delay of one year and five months or about 528 days after the alleged loss. The plea taken by the complainant that the FIR was registered within 5 days is not enough to make the insurance company liable to pay the claim which was lodged with it after a gap of one year 5 months. On this point reliance can be placed on case law titled as Surender Vs. National Insurance Co. Limited 1(2013) CPJ page 741 National Commission because in that case the vehicle was stolen on 20.5.2008 and FIR was lodged on the same day but it has been specifically mentioned that it was obligatory on the part of complainant to intimate about the theft to the Insurance Company immediately.

13                    In view of the above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has intimated the opposite parties after a gap of more than one year 5 months which is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Learned counsel for the OPs  No.2 &3 specifically referred the terms and conditions mentioned in the insurance policy Annexure R-6.  Hence, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the judgments mentioned (supra) and factual position of this case, this Forum is of considered view that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy and opposite parties have repudiated the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy. The authorities (supra) tendered by complainant are not disputed but not helpful in the present case whereas the authorities (supra) tendered by the OPs are fully applicable in the present case.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 28.8.2015.

 

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER