Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 45.
Instituted on : 23.01.2012.
Decided on : 25.03.2015.
Parveen Kaushik s/o Sh. Ramesh Kaushik R/o Village-Bohar, Teh. & Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Division Office 313, Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak -124001.
- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Rgd. Office E-7, M.G.Road Fort, Mumbai through its Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Krishan Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite parties.
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 vehicle bearing registration no.HR-12G-7684 which was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.35380031090100203544. It is averred that on 14.08.2010 the complainant went to the Bank for his personal work and parked his motorcycle outside and when he returned his vehicle was not there as the same was stolen by some unknown culprit. It is averred that complainant immediately informed the police and insurance company and also tried to search his vehicle but the same could not be traced out. A V.T. message was sent by the police to the other officials in this regard. The police officials told the complainant that the FIR will be registered after waiting for some period and the same could only be lodged vide No.510 dated 27.08.2010 in P.S. Civil lines, Rohtak. It is averred that the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties after submitting all the relevant documents but the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties vide letter dated 3.10.2011 on the false and frivolous grounds that the insured inform the insurance company after delay of 13 days and FIR was lodged after 17 days. As such it is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.30000/- as cost of motorcycle alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the vehicle was stolen on 14.08.2010 and intimation to the company was given on 01.09.2010 i.e. after 15 days of theft. It is averred that there is also a delay in lodging the FIR which is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It is averred that the claim of the complainant had been repudiated by the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled for any claim from the answering opposite parties. As such dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and the evidence of the complainant was closed by the Court order dated 03.11.2014 of this Forum. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, 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. After the theft complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties but the opposite party no.1 vide its letter Ex.C5 had repudiated the claim on the ground that there is delay of 17 days in intimating the opposite party and 13 days in lodging the FIR which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the theft had taken place on 12.08.2010 and the FIR was lodged on 27.08.2010 and as per claim intimation letter Ex.R3 the same was lodged on 01.09.2010. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant informed the police on the same day and a V.T. message was also sent by the police but the FIR was only lodged by the police on 27.08.2010 thus the delay in lodging the FIR, if any, was only on the part of police and not on the part of complainant. Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(2)CLT 447 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 FIR and delay of 33 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company-Whether violation of the 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”. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties has contended that there was delay of 17 days in intimating the opposite party and 13 days in lodging the FIR which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and hence the complainant is not entitled to any claim.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that no doubt there was delay in lodging the FIR or in intimating the police but as per the law cited above by ld. Counsel for the complainant Shriram General Insurance Compan(Supra), Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has rightly held that: “It is amply proved that the vehicle was stolen and could not be traced-It was a genuine claim of the complainant”. We have also placed reliance upon the decision dated 15.07.14 of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula titled Future Generali India Ins. Co. Vs. Amit. whereby it is rightly held that: “There is nothing on record to show that the insurance policy was taken after the occurrence of theft. Police have not given any report that false FIR was lodged by the complainant and accordingly the appeal was dismissed”. Moreover as per 2014(2)CLT 386 titled Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram Hon’ble State Commission has also 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.”, as per 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar 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” 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 parties are liable to pay the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle which as per policy document Ex.R2 is Rs.18000/-.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite parties shall pay the insured value of vehicle i.e. Rs.18000/-(Rupees eighteen thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 23.01.2012 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. transfer of R.C. & Subrogation letter etc. to the opposite parties failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.03.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
