This case has been brought by Dharamvir Kumar, S/o-Smt. Munni Devi and Late Basudev Paswan, R/o-Mohalla-Duzra (Gandhi Murti), P.S-Budha Colony, Dist-Patna-800001 v/s The Executive (Motor Claims) Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Corporate Claims Department, Sundaram Towers, 45 and 46 Whites Road, Chennai-600014 (O.P no.1), The Claim Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company ltd. Millennium City Information Technology, Park Unit no.T, S2-A2, Tower & Plot No. D.N.62, Sector-5, Salt Lake, Kolkata (O.P no.2), The Branch Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd, Kaushlya Estate, Near Harnivas Complex, Dak Bunglow Chouraha, Patna-800001 (O.P no.3) and MS Ruby Samanta, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd, Corporate Claim Department, Sundaram Towers, 45 and 46, Whites, Road, Chennai-600014 (O.P no.4) for the following reliefs:
- To direct the O.P to pay for Principal amount of the vehicle Rs.5,46,414/-.
- To direct the O.P to pay for Cost of interest 18% from the date of deposit till the date of payment Rs.1,00,000/-.
- To direct the O.P to pay for Cost of deficiency Rs.2,50,000/-.
- To direct the O.P to pay for mental torture and agony Rs.1,50,000/-
- To direct the O.P to pay for cost of litigation Rs.50,000/-.
The main case of the Complainant is that he is the son of the purchaser of Tata Sumo Victa EXEGR 7, Seater (D+6) bearing registration No. BR-01PA-5064 which was purchased on 16.09.2009 from M/s Shankar Motors Ltd, Plot No.C-1, Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna-800043 for which claimant had paid Rs.5,46,414.00 only (Rupees Five lacs forty six thousand four hundred fourteen only). A photo copy of the Tax Invoice s annexed as annexure 1. Further stated that thereafter the claimant took policy bearing Insurance Policy no. TMCOO51378000100000 from Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office ‘46’ Whites Road, Chennai-600014 which was issued on 28.09.2011 and valued was Rs.4,60,328/- (Rs. Four lacs sixty thousand three hundred twenty eight only). Thereafter the Complainant paid the premium amount of Rs.14,620/- (Rs. Fourteen thousand six hundred twenty) only. A photo copy of the insurance policy no. TMCOO51378000100000 is annexed as annexure 2. Further stated that thereafter Complainant gave the said vehicle to the M/s S.P Singla Company for rental. The aforesaid car was being used by the Assistant Engineer, Sri Ajay Kumar Rajak, who is working in the office of the Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation, Bihar Patna and Sri Amarnath S/o-Rajgir Prasad was the driver of the said vehicle. Further stated that on 28.03.2012 at 7 P.M. the driver of the said vehicle Sri Amarnath S/o Rajgir Prasad was the driver of the said vehicle Sri Amarnath S/o Rajgir Prasad parked the said vehicle near quarter no. B/304, Officers Flat, Bailey Road, Patna and its key gave to Mr.Ajay Kumar Rajak, the Assistant Engineer, Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation, Bihar, Patna. It is also stated that on 29.03.2012 at 7 A.M the driver did not find the vehicle parked near the quarter no. B/304. Accordingly, FIR was instituted as Kotwali P.S case no. 145/2012 dated 29.03.2012 under section 379 of the IPC. FIR is annexed as annexure 3. The information was given by the Complainant on mobile as well as on toll free number to the insurance and the Complainant also sent the information to the insurance on 31.03.2012. But claim was not settled by the Complainant by the O.P insurance company. While whatever the relevant documents were required they all were furnished to the insurance. But while the complain has not been redressed then this case has been brought.
On behalf of O.P it appears that the O.P no.1 submitted reply of the facts of the Complainant. It appears from the reply that prima facie the insurance policy of the vehicle in question for a period 02.10.2011 to 01.102012 has been admitted only. It has only been raised forcefully that there is delay of seven days in intimating alleged theft of the vehicle. The case of the committing theft has not also been denied specifically. It has been mainly stated that in case of delay intimation of theft there is clear case of breach of agreement. In this regard the decision of Hon’ble National Commission has also been raised as reported in (FA No. 321 of 2005). After going through the record it appears that only O.P no.1 has made contest in this case.
The main point of consideration in this case is that whether the Complainant is entitled to a relief as claimed?
Learned Counsel on behalf of Complainant submitted that despite having existing policy and its validity on the day of alleged occurrence of theft and also after giving proper intimation with supported documents relating to theft as well as all the papers connected to the vehicle claim of the Complainant has been repudiated by the insurance company illegally. Therefore, submitted that this complaint be allowed.
Learned Counsel on behalf of O.P submitted that repudiation claim has been made by the O.P. On account of breach of terms because the information was required to provide to the O.P by the Complainant just after the occurrence as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, submitted that the claim has rightly been repudiated.
Having heard the rival contention on behalf of both the sides we consider that only on account of delay in intimation of the occurrence of theft of the vehicle in question claim has been repudiated. While there is no specific denial relating to theft of occurrence and also there is no denial about the insurance policy existing on the relevant day of occurrence. In a such situation the claim of the Complainant cannot be repudiated out right. Particularly after considering the observation made in I (2020) CPJ 57 (SC) were in a case of delay in intimation particularly in a case of theft has been considered on account of non-standard basis. We, therefore, allow this complaint and O.P is directed to pay 75% of the claim amount i.e.Rs.409810/- (Four lacs nine thousand eight hundred ten rupees only) within two months of the order including the interest 6% p.a. accrued thereon from the day of filing of this case i.e.24.12.2014. In case of non-payment, Complainant shall be entitled to recover the amount in due course of law.
