BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Surinder Singh, s/o late Sh.Makhan Singh Chouhan, r/o #63, Old Indira Colony, Manimajra, Union Territory, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., S.C.O. No.45, Ist Floor, Sector – 20-C, Chandigarh, through it Senior Branch Manager

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Deepak Sabherwal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. G.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for OP.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant got his motorcycle bearing registration No. CH-03-Z-8589, Model 2007, insured from the OP vide cover note no. 583722 dated 17.02.2009 for Rs.33,000/- and paid a premium of Rs.842/- which was valid upto 19.02.2010. On the night of 27.02.2009 the motorcycle was stolen from the house of the complainant.  He tried his level best to locate the motorcycle but was unable to trace the same.  He then lodged FIR no. 84 dated 03.03.2009.  Thereafter he contacted Mr. Rajiv Kumar Uppal, who had issued the cover note of insurance to him and on his asking all the relevant documents in original were submitted by the complainant on 09.03.2009 for claim with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Assistant in the office of OP. After that the complainant visited the office of the OP several times for the settlement of his claim but the OP has not taken any action till date. On 01.06.2009, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Assistant in the office of the OP told the complainant that his claim papers have been misplaced by them and the complainant was advised to submit fresh application in this regard and accordingly, the complainant made written request for settlement of his claim in which it was mentioned that he had already submitted the relevant papers along with copy of FIR.  That in pursuance of the letter of the complainant, the office of the OP issued a letter dated 11.06.2009 to him in which it was asked to present within three days in order to clarify whether he had already intimated them or not.  That the complainant again apprised the OP that he had raised his claim well within time on 09.03.2009 and had submitted all the documents to Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Dealing Assistant.  When the complainant did not receive any response from the OP, he again represented on 06.07.2009 through registered letter and requested for early settlement of his claim. That instead of settlement of claim the OP had issued to him letter dated 24.08.2008 on the ground that he had not intimated the OP within 48 hours of the theft. The complainant then served a legal notice on 26.09.2009 regarding the same. The said legal notice was replied by the OP in which it was stated that the claim had been rejected on the ground that the theft was not reported to the OP within 48 hours.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OP. In their written reply the Learned Counsel for the OP submitted that the complainant had violated the Policy Condition in not reporting the theft of two wheeler, within 48 hours of occurrence.  The condition is mentioned in the policy itself, which reads as “Claim for theft of vehicle not payable if theft not reported to Company within 48hrs of its occurrence.  The two wheeler was stolen on 27.02.2009, whereas the same was reported on 01.06.2009. Accordingly the complainant was informed by the OP to the effect that the insurance company was unable to entertain the claim application on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             The Parties led evidence in support their contentions.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.             The claim was repudiated by the OP on the ground that the theft of the motorcycle was not reported to them with in 48 hours.  The motorcycle was parked on the night of 27.02.2009 at about 5.45 p.m. and when the complainant went to the parking place at 8.30 a.m. on 28.02.2009 he found the motorcycle missing.  He then lodged a report with the police.  The OP was informed on 1.06.2009. In support of his contention the Learned Counsel for the OP has referred to the condition as printed on the policy of insurance Annexure R-1 that the claim for theft of vehicle not payable if theft not reported to the Company within 48 hours of its occurrence. This is a unilateral condition imposed by the OP and is not supported by any rules or statutory instructions  There is no proof produced by the OP, if the complainant was informed about this condition before the policy was issued.  Infact this condition was imposed by the OP after the contract between the parties had been completed in pursuance of which Annexure R-1 was issued by them.  There is no evidence to suggest if the complainant consented for this condition imposed by the OP unilaterally. In order to prove this fact, the OP was required to produce the proposal form but they did not. We are therefore of the opinion that the condition of reporting theft in 48 hours cannot be used against the complainant.

6.             The terms and conditions of the insurance policy are to be in consonance with the rules and regulations framed by the competent Authority.  An insurance company at its own cannot impose such conditions which are not authenticated by the rules in that respect.  This condition otherwise also is contrary to the rules and cannot be enforced.

7.             In case of theft of the motorcycle, the claim of the insured cannot be thrown away simply because he did not report the matter to the OP promptly.  It is not a case of accident, where the evidence with respect to the accident may be washed away with the passage of time.  In the present case the place where the motorcycle was parked and from where it was stolen is not reported to have been tampered with.  There is no report of the investigator or the surveyor if he was unable to investigate the matter due to the lapse of time.  No reasons have been given as to how the time was essence of insurance for the payment for claim.  We are therefore of the view that imposing this condition in the insurance policy is an unfair trade practice designed for the sole motive to avoid the payment of compensation under the insurance policy which is their liability.

8.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the repudiation of the claim by the OP was not proper.  The complainant is entitled to the compensation.  The OP is therefore directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.33,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order failing which the entire amount shall be paid alongwith interest @12% p.a. since the date of repudiation i.e. 24.08.2009 till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.