BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.283/13.
Date of instt.: 24.12.2013.
Date of Decision: 12.03.2015.
Satish Kumar s/o Sh. Krishan Lal, r/o H.No.150/18, Rehbaraian Mohalla, Railway Gate, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
..……..Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Om Parkash, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is registered owner of motor-cycle Hero Honda bearing registration No.HR08J-7374 and got insured the said motor-cycle with the Op vide policy No.261390/31/2014/211 valid w.e.f. 28.04.2013 to 27.04.2014. It is alleged that the said motor-cycle was stolen on 26.06.2013 in front of his house. It is further alleged that an FIR was lodged bearing No.186 under Section 379 IPC with Police Station City Kaithal. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 17.09.2013. 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 there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. The true facts are that as per version in the complaint, the alleged theft of motor-cycle Hero Honda Model 2009 took place on 29.06.2013 and surprisingly even the FIR was lodged on 09.07.2013 i.e. after a gap of about 11 days. No immediate intimation about the alleged theft was given to answering Op, who received intimation about alleged theft for the first time only on 12.07.2013, which is against the terms & conditions of insurance policy which reads that the claim for theft of vehicle not payable if theft not reported to company within 48 hours of its occurrence. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant got insured his motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR08J07374 with the Op vide policy No.261390/31/2014/211 valid w.e.f. 28.04.2013 to 27.04.2014. The said motor-cycle was stolen on 26.06.2013 in front of his house. An FIR was lodged bearing No.186 under Section 379 IPC with Police Station City Kaithal. Ld. Counsel for the Ops contends that the theft of motor-cycle took place on 29.06.2013 and the FIR was lodged on 09.07.2012 i.e. after a gap of 11 days and the respondent received intimation about alleged theft for the first time on 12.07.2013. 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 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 Op to settle the claim of complainant on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the insured value (Rs.25,500/-) i.e. Rs.19,125/- to the complainant, 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.12.03.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
