Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/813/2010

Jarnail Singh S/o Tejinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Sarao

18 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 813 of  2010.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 1.9.2010

                                                                                              Date of decision: 18.9.2015.

Jarnail Singh son of Shri Tejinder Singh resident of Village Sasouli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office: Opp. Hindu Girls College, Old Court Road, Jagadhri, through its Branch Manager.      

 

                                                                                                                                          … Opposite party.

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                         SMT. SAROJ BALA, MEMBER          

 

Present: Sh. Sunil Sarao, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Parmod Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Jarnail Singh filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to pay the claim amount of  Rs. 19,500/- on account of theft of motorcycle alongwith Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and financial loss and Rs. 10000/- as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present case are that complainant had got insured his vehicle i..e motorcycle make Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No. HR-02M-6093 for a sum of Rs. 19.500/- vide policy No. 261701/01/31/2010/1389 having validity from 17.5.2009 to 16.5.2010. During the currency of insurance policy in question on 13.1.2010 the son of the complainant namely Manpreet Singh had gone in Guru Nanak Khalsa College, Yamuna Nagar on motorcycle in connection with his study course and when it was parked in front of City Palace, Yamuna Nagar and when he came back he found that the motorcycle was not there. The son of the complainant made search here and there but of no use. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police and an FIR No. 40 dated 13.1.2010 was registered under section 379 IPC in police station, City, Yamuna Nagar. After waiting for quite a sufficient time the complainant informed the OP company and sent all the necessary documents to the OP and made claim for theft of motorcycle in question but the complainant was stunned to receive a letter dated 10.8.2010 from the OP in which they closed the claim file treated as No Claim on the ground that the vehicle was stolen on 13.1.2010 and intimation was received by the company on 13.5.2010 i.e. after a gap of four months which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has to face financial loss, mental agony and harassment which amounts to deficiency in service on their part as the OP has illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     On being served, the OPs have contested the complaint of the complainant by filing reply by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, no cause of action, etc. and on merit it is submitted that complainant informed the OP company vide letter dated 13.5.2010 ( Annexure R-2) regarding theft of the said motorcycle and the claim of complainant was closed vide letter dated 10.8.2010 on the following observation:-

            “ In connection with the above, we are to inform you that your above said vehicle got stolen on 13.1.2010 and the intimation for the same was received by us on 13.5.2010 after a gap of four months. As per our policy’s terms and conditions, the claim of theft of vehicle not payable, if theft not reported to company within 48 hours of its occurrence. Keeping in view the above, the competent authority has closed your said file treated as No Claim. This is for your information please”.

                        As such the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated as per the terms and conditions of the policy and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OIP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of FIR No. 40 dated 13.1.2010 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Insurance policy as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of Registration Certificate as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant..

 5.                    On the other hand, counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ashok Sawhney Sr. Branch Manager OIC as Annexure RX, and documents such as Annexure R-1 Photo copy of Insurance policy, Annexure R-2 Photo copy of intimation letter dated 13.5.2010, Annexure R-3 Photo copy of claim rejection letter dated 10.8.2010 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully.  Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     Admittedly, the motorcycle of the complainant was insured with the OP vide Policy cover Note No. 261701/31/2010/1389 Annexure C-2/R-1 effective from 17.5.2009 to 16.5.2010 for a sum of Rs. 19,500/- in the name of Jarnail Singh son of Tejinder Singh complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the motorcycle in question was stolen on 13.1.2010 during the subsistence of the policy and claim lodged by the complainant was not honoured by the opposite party whereas it is the case of the OP is that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy as the complainant intimated the OP company vide letter dated 13.5.2010 ( Annexure R-2) regarding theft of his motorcycle after a gap of more than 4 months i.e. 120 days. The arguments raised on behalf of OPs are supported by case law titled as Bachan Singh vs. OIC ltd. 2014(3) CLT page 103 (N.C.), New Inia Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Avtar 2013(4) CLT page 573 (N.C.),  Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil, 2015 (3) CLT page 90 (N.C) and another case law titled as H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Bhagchand Saini, 1(2015) CPJ page 206 (N.C.) have weight as delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft would be violation of condition of the policy as it deprives insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to commission of theft and to help in tracing the vehicle. Moreover, in the policy, it has been specifically mentioned that claim for theft of the vehicle not payable if theft not reported to the company within 48 hours of its occurrence. On this point, reliance can also be placed on judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane, First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 and the case titled as Om Parkash vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2012 (III) CPJ page 59. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Om Parkash vs. National Insurance company Ltd. (supra) has observed that “ Insurance-theft of vehicle-Delay in intimation-Claim repudiated-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint- State Commission allowed appeal-Hence revision-terms and conditions of insurance policy are required to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity-Even delay of few days in not intimating Insurance Company about incident of theft is fatal-insured looses its right to be indemnified when he himself is not vigilant about his rights and his obligations in regarding to compliance of terms and conditions of policy-impugned order upheld”.

8.                      Similarly, Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane (supra) has observed in the case of theft “where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the policy as it deprives the insurers of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle.”  

9                      In another case also Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bhagchand Saini (supra) observed that Insurance-Theft of vehicle- Delay in intimation-Violation of conditions of policy-Claim repudiated-alleged deficiency in service- District Forum allowed complaint- State Commission dismissed appeal-Hence revision-Delay of about 4 months in giving intimation to Insurance Company- Insurance contract is a contract of indemnity-Violation of conditions has to be taken into account- Complainant is not entitled for any compensation even on ‘non-standard’ basis- Complaint dismissed. Revision petition allowed.

 10                   And also Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil (supra) has observed that Insurance Claim-theft of car- Insured intimated the insurer regarding theft of his car after 39 days of the accident-Held- Insured has violated the mandatory terms and conditions of the insurance policy-revision petition allowed.

11.                   In the present case, it is admitted fact that vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OP and the same was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy and the FIR was registered on the same day but intimation was given after four months which is evident from Annexure R-2. Even this fact has been admitted by the complainant in his complaint that the information was given to the OP after waiting sufficient time but from the perusal of Annexure R-2 it is clear that the intimation was given to the insurance company only in the month of May 2010 i.e. after a delay of 4 months or about 120 days after the alleged loss. Even the complainant has not mentioned any date or month on which he has intimate the OP regarding the theft. The plea taken by the complainant that the FIR was registered within 48 hours i.e. in two days is not enough to make the insurance company liable to pay the claim which was lodged with it after a gap of 4 months. On this point reliance can be placed on case law titled as Surender Vs. National Insurance Co. Limited 1(2013) CPJ page 741 National Commission (supra) because in that case the vehicle was stolen on 20.5.2008 and FIR was lodged on the same day but it has been specifically mentioned that it was obligatory on the part of complainant to intimate about the theft to the Insurance Company immediately.

12                    In view of the above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has intimated the opposite party after a gap of 4 months which is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Learned counsel for the OP specifically referred the terms and conditions mentioned in the insurance policy Annexure R-1.  Hence, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the judgments mentioned (supra) and factual position of this case, this Forum is of considered view that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy and opposite party has repudiated the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 18.9.2015.

 

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER

 

                                                                                               

                                                                                                (SAROJ BALA)

                                                                                                MEMBER