Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 266.
Instituted on : 28.07.2014.
Decided on : 05.04.2016.
Baby Miglani w/o Sh. Harish Kumar R/o House No.1278/28, Arjun Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
The New India Assurance Co. having office at Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak, through its Divisional Manager.
……….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: Sh.Gulshan Chawla, 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 she is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration no.HR-12V-1120 and the same was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.31260031130300745024 for the period 08.05.2013 to 07.05.2014. It is averred that the vehicle in question was stolen on 17.11.2013 and to this effect timely FIR was lodged and intimation was made to the opposite party without any delay. It is averred that lateron, within the span of few days, the vehicle in question was recovered by police authority and same was taken on superdari by the complainant It is averred that by the time vehicle was badly damaged and intimation of the same was given to the opposite party and the opposite party appointed the surveyor who gave the estimate to an amount of Rs.178427/-. It is averred that the complainant requested the opposite party for repairing of the vehicle by providing the cashless facility as committed at the time of issuance of policy but the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 30.01.2014 on the false and frivolous grounds. It is averred that the complainant get the vehicle repaired by making the payment of Rs.127475/-. It is averred that the complainant requested the opposite party to settle the genuine claim of the complainant but to no effect. As such it is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and it is prayed that the opposite party may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.127475/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the FIR was not given immediately and no intimation was given in time. Intimation to the company was given on 22.11.2013. Thus there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy specifically condition no.1 of the policy. Therefore the company is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. It is true that the vehicle was recovered by the police and after that intimation was given to the company. This shows that the complainant employee was involved in the theft. The damages were due to the fault of complainant therefore company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is denied that complainant suffered a loss of Rs.127475/-. According to the surveyor of company, net loss was assessed as Rs.102000/-. The claim was rightly repudiated by the company because the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore company is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. As such 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 his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R7 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. It is also not disputed that lateron the vehicle was recovered but in damaged condition. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that he spent an amount of Rs.127475/- on the repair of vehicle and has filed the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.C5 has repudiated the claim on the ground that there was delay of 5 days in giving intimation to the company about the theft and as per FIR the driver of the vehicle had left the key inside the vehicle at the time of theft and the DL of driver is not produced for verification.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that regarding the plea taken by the opposite party that the key was left inside the vehicle, no affidavit of the driver has been placed on record by the opposite party. D.L. of the Surender Kumar has been placed on record as Ex.C4. Regarding the delayed intimation to the company, it is observed that the FIR was lodged on the same day and the 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”, as per III(2008) CPJ 459 titled Ridhi Gupta Vs. NIC Hon’ble Delhi State Commission , New Delhi has held that: “Insurance-Theft-Information to police in any form, including DD report, sufficient requirement-Once report lodged with police in any form, Insurance Company barred from appointing investigator to investigate, whether theft took place or not”. Moreover the case in dispute is regarding the damages to the vehicle and not about theft and the surveyor after inspecting the vehicle has assessed the loss. In view of aforesaid law which are applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the complainant is entitled for the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor and the surveyor as per his report Ex.R3 has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.102000/-. On the other hand, law cited by ld. Counsel for the opposite party IV(2013)CPJ 137(NC) titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar and II(2013)CPJ 578(NC) titled as Jagdish Parshad Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite party shall pay the amount of Rs.102000/-(Rupees one lac two thousand only) as assessed by the surveyor along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 28.07.2014 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 decision 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.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.04.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
