Delhi

North East

CC/146/2014

Yusuf - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurane Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 146/14

 

In the matter of:

 

		Yusuf S/o Meharban Ali R/o 152, Gali No.4 Kardampuri, Shahdara, Delhi-110094.		Complainant
		Versus
		The New India Assurance Co.Ltd D.R.O-II, 10th Floor Scope Minar, Core-I, Laxmi Nagarm, District Centre, Delhi-92.		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :		30.04.2014 07.02.2018 09.02.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that the complainant was owner of motorcycle of make TVS Apache Bearing Registration No. DL-7S-AG-4935. The said bike was insured with the OP vide Two Wheeler Package Policy No. 32030331120100004942 coverage for which was given to the complainant for the period 10.10.2012 to 09.10.2013 by the OP for a total IDV of 23,000/- against which cover, the complainant had paid a premium of Rs. 618/-. The complainant has stated that on 10.05.2013, the said motorcycle  was stolen from Jyoti Colony Shahdara, Delhi while the said motorcycle  was with a worker namely Firasat who was employed with the complainant in carpentry business and was his faithful employee. The complainant lodged a police complaint at PS Shahdara vide DD No. 13A dated 10.05.2013 about this theft for which FIR No. 193/13 was registered by the Shahdara Police Station on 16.05.2013 under section 379 IPC. Despite efforts by the concerned Police the said motorcycle could not be trace and therefore Hon’ble Court of CMM Shri Sanjay Bansal, Karkardoma Courts, Delhi issued final untrace report w.e.f. said motorcycle  on 28.09.2013. After receipt of this report, the complainant reported the matter with the OP regarding theft of the said motorcycle  on 04.10.2013. The OP vide letter dated 15.10.2013 had asked the complainant to furnish several documents to the OP within 7 days of its receipt. The complainant, vide letter dated 23.01.2014 to the manager of OP had informed about the said theft and also that the FIR for the said theft was lodged on 16.05.2013 despite theft being reported vide PCR call on 100 Number on 10.05.2013 itself i.e. the very day of theft and the complainant admittedly informed the OP that he is informing the OP after a delay of four months since he was awaiting the final trace / untrace report from the Police which took four months to come and that the complainant was not aware of process of information to the OP. However, the OP vide repudiation letter dated 24.01.2014, declined to entertain the claim of the complainant on the ground of gross violation of condition No.1 of the policy since the intimation of theft was supposed to be immediately on occurrence as per this condition as against which, the complainant had intimated to the OP as late as on 04.10.2013 i.e. after a delay of almost 4 months and 24 days from the date of alleged occurrence (theft). Therefore the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint alleging the repudiation as absolutely false, frivolously and with malafide intention of the OP. The complainant has sought the following reliefs from this Forum:-

1. Direction to OP to pay a sum of Rs. 23,000/- towards claim of the complainant
2. Direction to OP to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental pain and agony.
3. Directions to OP to pay Rs. 5000/- towards cost of the litigation.

2. Notice was issued to the OP which filed its written statement on 17.07.2014 in which the OP while admitting the subsistence of the insurance cover,  took the preliminary objection that the complainant had informed the OP about the theft after a delay of 4 months 24 days and FIR of the complainant was also lodged after a delay of 6 days from the date of alleged theft and as such the claim of the complainant was rightfully repudiated in view of the settled provision of law that contract of insurance between the parties has to be strictly construed and interpreted in terms of condition as laid down in the policy document . The OP further submitted that the insurance in a contract wherein the parties to it are bound by its terms and conditions. The OP further took the plea the OP is a PSU (Public Sector Undertaking) and as such it acts as custodian of public fund and it is duty bound to ensure that all claims lodged with it are paid strictly as per terms and condition of contract of insurance entered into between the insured and the insurer. OP submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed with cost. Lastly the OP averred that it has acted strictly as per proposal form and terms and conditions of the policy document. All the terms & conditions of the policy documents are duly approved by IRDA and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant rebutting the defence of the complainant summarily.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties exhibiting relevant documents in support of their case/defence.
5. Written arguments were filed by both the parties. The complainant argued that he was an illiterate person who worked as a carpenter and does not understand the intricacies of law and admitted that he did not inform the OP about the theft of motorcycle immediately but had duly reported the theft thereof to the police without any delay and therefore his bonafide belief that the motorcycle  could or may be found / traced by the police cannot be doubted. The complainant further argued that he was never provided any terms and conditions of the policy by the OP at the time of selling of the same which could have made the complainant aware that he was oblige to intimate about the mishap to the OP within a stipulated period and sited case law of United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs MKJ Corporation III (1996) CPJ 8 SC in which the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that just as the insured has a duty to disclose similarly, it is the duty of the insurers and its agents to disclose all materials facts within their knowledge, since obligation of good faith applies to them ewally with the assured. The complainant further argued that the OP cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong and omission in as much as it has failed to produce any document to show that the terms and conditions of the policy were ever supplied to the complainant and placed reliance on constitutional bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in General assurance society Ltd Vs Chandumal jain and Ors 1966 (3) SCR 500 in which the Hon’ble APEX Court had expressed “in a contract of insurance there is requirement of uberrima fides i.e. good faith on the part of assured and contract is likely to be construed contra proferentem i.e. against the company in case of ambiguity or doubt”. Lastly the complainant argued that the OP never mentioned any time limit within which the intimation should have been given after the date of incident of theft and has suffered no loss due to belated intimation filed by the complainant.
6.  Written arguments were filed by the OP arguing that despite the insurance cover given to the complainant by it being operational during the concerned period of theft i.e. 04.10.2013, however in view of delayed filing of FIR (delay of 6 days) and delay in lodging the claim / informing the OP about the alleged theft (delay of 4 months 24 days), the repudiation of the claim vide letter dated 24.10.2014 was justified in view of settled proposition of law reiterating the defence taken by OP in its written statement. The OP relied upon judgment passed by Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Devendra Singh Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. III (2003) CPJ 77(NC) which dealt with more or less the same facts as that of the present case in which the loss was reported to the police after 4 days of loss and to the insurer after a delay of almost a month in which the Hon’ble NCDRC held that the repudiation of claim in such a case by the insurance company was justified.
7. We have heard the oral arguments addressed by both the parties and have carefully perused the documents filed by both the parties in support of their claim/defence and duly exhibited.

As goes the maxim ‘ignorance of law is no excuse’, the explanation for delay in informing the OP by the complainant on grounds of him being an illiterate carpenter and not aware that police action by way of FIR and immediate intimation to the insurance company in case of theft is not justifiable ground for defence for delayed intimation to both the authorities. The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Iqbal Husain Karimbhai Patel Vs United India Insurance Company III (2017) CPJ 523 (NC) and also in the case of Bhartiye Samajik Vikas Samitee Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors has ruled that in such cases of theft the insured is duty bound in terms of policy to inform the police and insurance company about theft immediately after the incident as per the contract between insured and insurer, both being strictly governed by terms and conditions of policy and failure to inform / delayed information deprives the insured of its otherwise legitimate right of claim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Parvez Chander Chaddha 2010 CPJ I SC in CA No. 6739/2010 held that in such a case of delayed intimation by the insured, the insurance company cannot be saddled with liability to pay compensation to the insured and had thereby dismissed both the revision petitions on this ground.

8. In view of the settled law on this issue of rightful repudiation of claim in the event of delayed intimation to the police and insurance company, we are not inclined to allow the present complaint since the complainant could not establish comprehensively / cogently reason/ justification for this inordinate delay. By merely stating that he was waiting for untraced report by the concerned court to explain the delay in no valid ground to condone the act of the complainant. The complaint is therefore dismissed as devoid of merits with no order as to cost.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.   File be consigned to record room.
11.   Announced on  09.02.2018   

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member