BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 204 of 2011 | Date of Institution | : | 19.04.2011 | Date of Decision | : | 01.08.2011 |
Des Raj, #569, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh. …..Complainant V E R S U S The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Service Centre (Chandigarh R.O), SCO No. 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. ……Opposite Party CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by: Sh.V.S. Kaundal, Counsel for Complainant. Sh. G.S.Ahluwalia, Counsel for OP. --- PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. The complainant got is vehicle namely Indica Car bearing Regn.No.CH-03-W-8021 insured with the OP Insurance Company vide insurance policy Annexure C-1 for the period from 31.3.2009 to 30.3.2010. During the currency of the aforesaid policy i.e. on 2.9.2010, the said vehicle was snatched by two unknown persons from the son of the Complainant. Information to this effect was duly given to P.S. Pehowa and also to the OP Insurance Company. A claim was lodged by the Complainant with the OP, along with all relevant documents. But to his utter surprise, the OP Insurance Company repudiated his claim on erroneous grounds. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 10.12.2010 was served upon the OP, but the same also failed to fructify. Hence, this complaint. 2] Notice of the complaint was sent to OP, seeking their version of the case. 3] OP in its reply, while admitting the fundamental facts of the case, pleaded that the vehicle was being used for commercial use for hire and reward, which was in violation of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, the claim of the Complainant was legally repudiated by the replying OP. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint. 4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6] The admitted facts may be noticed thus:- i) The vehicle bearing Regn.No.CH-03-W-8021 was insured with the OP vide comprehensive insurance policy (Annexure C-1) for the period from 31.3.2009 to 30.3.2010 for sum insured of Rs.2 lacs. ii) The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 10.12.2010 on the ground that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose i.e. hire and reward which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 7] Now, the point for consideration is that whether the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose for hire and reward which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant made a statement that the vehicle was insured as private vehicle but the same was being used for commercial purposes. He further stated that under these circumstances, the claim may be allowed on non-standard basis. 8] The claim has been repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 10.06.2010 (Annexure C-2) on the ground that the robbery of the vehicle took place on 02.09.2009; whereas, the matter was intimated vide application dated 24.09.2009 as such there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which provides for intimation of incident to the insurer within 48 hours from the date of incident. That the vehicle was being used as commercial purpose for hire and reward which is hit by the policy conditions. 9] Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandewal reported in IV(2008) CPJ(SC) wherein, it has been held that, in case, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are violated and the claim is repudiated, then the settlement of claim on non-standard basis is legal and permissible to the extent of 75% of the claim amount as breach of policy conditions are not germane in case of theft of vehicle and so the nature of use of the vehicle cannot be looked into. In the instant case, the vehicle in question was snatched by unknown persons from the son of the complainant on 02.09.2010 and information to this effect was duly given to the police station Pehowa on the even date and also to the OP. Learned counsel for the OP had failed to rebut the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant. Consequently, it is held that the OP is liable to indemnify the loss on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the claim amount. 10] Secondly, the claim has been repudiated by the OP on the ground that the robbery of the vehicle took place on 02.09.2009; whereas, the matter was intimated on 24.09.2009 which is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as intimation of the incident to the OP is required to be given within 48 hours from the occurrence of the incident. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that though there is delay in intimation to the OP but the same is not fatal and the claim is payable. The reliance was placed on the judgment titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manoj Agarwal reported in III(2006) CPJ -180 wherein it has been held that where the vehicle is stolen and intimation to the police was given but the insurance company was not intimated immediately and in that contingency the delay in intimation to the insurance company does not matter. In view of this, it is held that the delay in intimation to the insurance company is not fatal. So the repudiation of the claim is illegal on this count also. 11] In view of the above findings, the complaint is allowed with a direction to OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs on the basis of non-standard basis along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OP is liable to pay the awarded amount to the complainant along with interest @ 12% from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 10.06.2010, till its realization besides costs of litigation. 12] The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 01/08/2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
