Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 418.
Instituted on : 17.11.2014.
Decided on : 08.04.2016.
Amit Kumar s/o Sh. Balram resident of H.No.305/9, Jasbir Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, 313, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Ms.Sarita Ahlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.HR-12L-9355 which was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.35380031120100007803. The policy was effective from 23.11.2012 to 22.11.2013 against an assured amount of Rs.40000/-. It is averred that the alleged motorcycle was stolen on 3.4.2013 and the police was informed immediately on phone no.100. It is averred that the complainant also informed the opposite party on 4.4.2013 regarding the alleged theft. It is averred that when the complainant and police were unable to trace the motorcycle, an FIR was registered in P.S. Urban Estate, Rohtak on the statement of Ankur the brother of the complainant. It is averred that complainant submitted all the documents with the opposite party for getting claim and also submitted the untraced report but the opposite party has not settled the claim of the complainant despite his repeated requests. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the insured amount of vehicle alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is wrong that the complainant informed the police in time and informed the answering opposite party in the morning on 4.4.2013. The true facts are that the complainant left the vehicle unattended and informed the police on 05.04.2013 and intimation to the company on 11.06.2013. Thus there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy specially condition no.1 of the policy. Thus the company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in her evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and has closed her evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed. As per Certificate of insurance Ex.C1, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.40000/-. It is also not disputed that as per the letter Ex.C3, the information regarding theft of vehicle no.HR-12-L-9355 was given to the police on No.100 on 03.04.2013 and the same was recorded at Sr. No.42 by the police. The FIR Ex.C4 was lodged on 05.04.2013. After the theft complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R5 had repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was stolen on 03.04.2013 and the matter was reported to the police on 05.04.2013 and to the opposite party on 11.06.2013 i.e. after 65 days.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has only been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that there was delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR and 65 days in giving intimation to the company. In this regard it is observed that as per the letter Ex.C3 whereby reply to the information sought under RTI, it is proved that intimation to the police was given on the same day at No.100 and the FIR was lodged on 05.04.2013. Hence it is not proved on file that there was delay in giving intimation to the police. Regarding the delayed intimation to the opposite party, we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Delay of 12 days in intimation to insurance company-There may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim, which is otherwise proved to be genuine”, as per 2014(3)CLT447 titled as Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manoj Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Repudiation- On the ground that there was delay of eleven days in lodging the F.I.R. and delay of 33 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company-Whether violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy?-Held-No-FIR lodged and intimation was also given to the Insurance Company-Thus, it is amply proved that the vehicle was stolen and could not be traced-it was a genuine claim of the complainant-Appeal dismissed”, as per 2014(2)CLT 386 titled Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram Hon’ble State Commission has held that: “In case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane-The delay of 15 days is not significant in such a case.”, and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2011-4PLR titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma has held that : “Merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform the petitioner-company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim and it is further held that Insurance companies are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium-Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the repudiation of claim by the opposite parties on the ground of delayed intimation to the police as well as to the insurance company is not genuine and the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle. On the other hand law cited by ld. Counsel for the opposite party i.e. I(2013)CPJ 662(NC) titled as Mallikarjun Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as in the present case police was immediately informed by the complainant on the same day of theft.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite party shall pay the insured declared value of vehicle i.e. Rs.40000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.11.2014 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc. to the opposite party failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
08.04.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………….
Ved Pal, Member
