Haryana

Karnal

CC/590/2021

Parmod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

R.C Arora

14 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                         Complaint No.590 of 2021

                                                          Date of instt.21.10.2021

                                                          Date of Decision 14.07.2023

 

Parmod Kumar son of Shri Devi Dayal, resident of House no.246, Sector-33, Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

The Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Sector-12, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri R.K. Arora, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Mohit Goyal, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant got insured his motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05AM-9364 with the OP, vide policy no.IUZVV85SP400 M-3304348, valid from 03.10.2018 to 02.10.2019. On 17.09.2019, the said motorcycle was stolen by some unknown person and in this regard an FIR no.716 dated 20.09.2019, under section 379 of IPC was registered with Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal. The complainant immediately informed the OP regarding theft of motorcycle and requested the OP to pay the insurance amount. OP told the complainant until and unless, the untrace report is not supplied, claim cannot be settled. On 07.07.2021, the police submitted untrace report in the court of Ms. Saravpreet Kaur learned JMIC Karnal and the same was accepted by the court. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP alongwith relevant documents including the untrace report and requested to settle the claim but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 26.08.2021 to the OP but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the theft of the vehicle was occurred on 17.09.2019 for which intimation was given to the OP through a legal notice dated 26.08.2021 i.e. after inordinate delay of two years. Upon receiving belated intimation of theft, OP appointed a surveyor Shri Vijay Kant Vashisth to investigate the alleged theft. The investigator tried to contact to the complainant for joint meeting for verification of theft, but neither the complainant turned up nor he sent any reply or any documents. The investigator wrote a letter dated 19.10.2021 to complainant but it was found undelivered. The investigator also approached the Advocate R.K. Arora who served the legal notice on behalf of complainant but the said Advocate also not cooperated with the investigator. Then OP had written a letter dated 17.11.2021 to Shri R.K. Arora Advocate of complainant to advice the complainant to contact the appointed investigator but no reply was received till the date. Rather, the present falls and frivolous complaint has been filed by the complainant to bypass the mandatory claim formalities. Till date no single document is submitted by the complainant even h e did not bother to contact the investigator or to the OP. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Jaspal Singh Advocate Ex.CW2/A, copy of FIR Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of RC Ex.C3, copy of untrace report Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipt Ex.C6, copy of driving licence Ex.C7, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C8, copy of claim form Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 16.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Devender Kumar, General Manager Ex.OPW1/A, copy of survey report Ex.OP1, copy of letter dated 17.11.2021 Ex.OP2, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP3, copy of legal notice Ex.OP4, copy of letter dated 31.08.2021 Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 11.05.2023 by suffering separate statement. 6.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got his motorcycle insured with the OP. On 17.09.2019, the said motorcycle was stolen and in this regard an FIR no.716 dated 20.09.2019, under section 379 of IPC was got registered with Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal. The intimation was sent to the OP. On 07.07.2021, the police submitted the untrace report. Complainant approached the OP alongwith relevant documents including the untrace report and requested the OP to settle the claim but OP did not settle the claim till date and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the theft of the vehicle was occurred on 17.09.2019 and intimation was given to the OP on 26.08.2021 through legal notice i.e. after inordinate delay of two years. Upon receiving belated intimation of theft, OP appointed a surveyor to investigate the alleged theft. But complainant neither submitted the required documents nor cooperate the investigator and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant got his motorcycle insured with the OP. It is also admitted that the said motorcycle was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy. It is also admitted that the insured declared value of the vehicle in question is Rs.26,000/-.

11.           The claim of the complainant has been denied by the OP, vide letter Ex.OP5 dated 31.08.2021 on the ground of inordinate delay of about 714 days.

 

12.           In the present complaint, vehicle in question was stolen on 17.09.2019 and complainant immediately intimated to the police and police lodged the First Information Report (FIR) Ex.C1 on very next day i.e. 20.09.2019. There is no delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR. Generally, the owner/Driver of the vehicle first tries to search the vehicle at his own level, but when he fails to trace out the same, the matter is reported to the police. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the police does not register the FIR immediately after getting information of theft of any vehicle, either the complainant is asked to trace out the vehicle at his own level or efforts are made by the police for searching the vehicle, but when the vehicle is not traced out, then only the FIR is registered. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any unreasonable delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the case titled as Om Parkash Versus Reliance General Insurance and anr. in Civil Appeal no.15611 of 2017 decided on 4.10.2017 whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in para no.11 of the said judgment, that it is a common knowledge that a person who has lost his vehicle may not straightway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy holder in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactory explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. We also placed reliance upon the judgment in case titled as Gurshinder Singh Versus Shri Ram General Insurance Co. in Civil Appeal no.653 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in para no.20 of the said judgment has held that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured. The similar view was taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Dharamnder Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others in civil Appeal no.5705 of 2021 date of decision 13.09.2021 and Jatin Construction Company Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr. in Civil Apeal no.1069 of 2022 date of decision 11.02.2022.

13.           Learned counsel for the OP submitted that theft of the vehicle was occurred on 17.09.2019 for which intimation was given to the OP on 26.08.2021 i.e. after inordinate delay of two years. There is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. He further submitted that complainant has not submitted any documents which were necessary to settle the claim.  If for the sake of gravity, if it is presumed that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, in that eventuality, the claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated in toto.  In this regard, we can relied upon the case laws cited in Revision Petition no.1870 of 2015(NC) decided on 14.08.2018 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Thirath Singh Brar and authority of our own Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal no.717 of 2016 decided on 6.4.2017 titled as United India Insurance Company Limited and others Versus Anshul Bansal.  In both judgments it was held that in case of any breach of warranty/condition of the policy the insurer is liable to pay 75% of admissible claim on non-standard basis.

14.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments and the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice while repudiating the claim of the complainant in toto. Hence, complainant is entitled to get 75% only of the admissible claim on non-standard basis.

15.           As per insurance policy Ex.C2/OP3, the insured declared value of the vehicle in question is Rs.26,000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for Rs.19500/- - i.e. 75% of the insured amount alongwith interest, compensation for mental pain and agony and litigation expenses etc.

16.           In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.19,500/- (Rs. nineteen thousand five hundred only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.3300/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, the complainant is also directed to complete all the formalities with regard to transfer/cancel of the RC of the vehicle in question. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:14.07.2023     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                        Member