BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.159/14.

Date of instt.: 21.08.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 11.08.2015.

Raj Pal son of Sh. Waliayati Ram, resident of Fatehpur, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Ms. Nisha Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. P.P.Kaushik, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his motor-cycle bearing No.HR-08L/6015 with the Op vide policy No.261304/31/2012/3602 valid w.e.f. 04.11.2011 to 03.11.2012.  It is alleged that on 26.09.2012 the motor-cycle of complainant was stolen from Panchayat Bhawan, Kaithal.  Information regarding theft of motor-cycle was given to Op.  It is further alleged that the complainant also informed the Police Official Civil Line, Kaithal but FIR was lodged on 19.10.2012 by P.S. Civil Line, Kaithal.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op but the Op repudiated the claim of complainant on 25.03.2013.  The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant neither intimated the insurer/Op about the alleged theft within 48 hours of the alleged theft nor did he lodge the claim with the answering Op/insurer regarding alleged theft of vehicle.  The claim has been lodged with the insurer on 04.10.2012 though the theft was committed on 26.09.2012.  The complainant also failed to submit untraced report despite repeated demands for about one year.  The complainant neither lodged FIR immediately within stipulated period of 48 hours from the time of alleged theft.  Rather he has lodged the FIR to the concerned police station after delay of 25 days i.e. on 19.10.2012.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1/A to C1/E and closed evidence on 17.04.2015.  On the other hand, the Op tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.RA to RE and closed evidence on 15.07.2015.     

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.  

5.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant got insured his motor-cycle bearing No.HR-08L/6015 with the Op vide policy No.261304/31/2012/3602 valid w.e.f. 04.11.2011 to 03.11.2012.  He further argued that on 26.09.2012 the motor-cycle of complainant was stolen from Panchayat Bhawan, Kaithal.   On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op argued that the claim has been lodged with the insurer on 04.10.2012 though the theft was committed on 26.09.2012.  He further argued that the complainant has lodged the FIR to the concerned police station after delay of 25 days i.e. on 19.10.2012.  As per terms and condition No.1 of insurance policy, “Notice shall be given in writing to insurance company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damages”.  So, the complainant violated the terms and condition of the insurance policy.  Despite of violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, we are of the considered view that the complainant should not be denied his claim in it’s entirely.  It is, therefore, quite just and fair that the claim is in respect of loss of motor-cycle must be settled on the basis of the guidelines of non-standard settlement.  In this regard, reliance can be made to authorities reported as United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rambharoshi Rathore, 2008(3) CPJ page 347; 2008(4) CPR (II); 2008(3) CLT page 491 (NC), wherein it has been held that Repudiation-On the ground that before theft it was used for commercial purpose-Violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy-It is shown that the respondent/complainant is otherwise an agriculturist by occupation-In the circumstances, despite violation of terms and conditions of policy the claim directed to be settled on the basis of the guidelines on non-standard settlement.  In the judgment titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh reported in II(2006) CPJ page 83 (NC), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that in case of violation of condition of policy as to nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on non-standard basis.  In case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal reported in IV(2008) CPJ page 1 (SC).  In para No.13 of judgment, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the appellant insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for loss caused to the insurer.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis.  In this case, the Hon’ble State Commission allowed 75% of the claim on non-standard basis, which was upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said authorities are fully applicable to the present case.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op has repudiated the claim of complainant in toto wrongly which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Op.

8.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to settle the claim of complainant on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the insured value (Rs.36,000/-) i.e. Rs.27,000/-, subject to submission of subrogation letter and the ownership change in the name of Op.  No order as to cost.  Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order to the parties, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of this order till its realization.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.11.08.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.