Haryana

Jind

CC/15/50

Manglesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Reliance GIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Raghbir Singh Malik

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                                              Complaint No. 41 of 2015

                                                    Date of institution:-25.3.2015

                                                    Date of decision:- 29.4.2016

Manglesh Kumar s/o Amar Nath r/o ward No.4 purani chungi Safidon, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.

                                                                           ..Complainant.

Versus

The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. regional office, SCO-145-146 sector-9C Madhya Mag. Chandigarh U.T. through its Branch Manager, Jind.

                                                                          …Opposite party.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before:      Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.

                Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

                Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member. 

 

Present:-    Sh. R.S. Malik, Adv. for the complainant.

                Sh. J.B. Goyal, Adv.for the opposite party. 

Order:-

                Complainant Manglesh Kumar filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondent (hereinafter referred as opposite party) be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.36,575/- along with interest @24% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till final payment and complaint may kindly be accepted with costs in favour of complainant against the opposite party.

                        Manglesh Kumar Vs. RGIC

                                        …2…

2.     Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had got insured his motor-cycle  Bajaj Platina bearing registration No. HR-33D-4454 for a sum of Rs.36,575/- from opposite party vide policy No.2004542312018865 cover note No.WO6121410677 for the period from 12.6.2014 to 11.6.2015. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1129/- as premium to the opposite party.

3.     On dated 1.9.2014 the above said motor-cycle has been stolen by some unknown person and information was given to the opposite party by the complainant and written complaint was given to the police of P.S. Safidon on the same day i.e. 1.9.2014. A criminal case was got registered with the Police of P.S. Safidon vide F.I.R. No.302 dated 14.9.2014 under Section 379 IPC against some unknown person. The complainant searched out the above said motor-cycle here and there but did not found and immediately informed the opposite party. The police of Police Station Safidon investigated the aforesaid case and ultimately filed untraced report before the court of Ld. Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Safidon and the same was allowed vide order dated 13.2.2015. The complainant submitted all the necessary documents and claim application to the opposite party. The complainant requested the opposite party to give the claim amount but the opposite party illegally and unlawfully repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 28.2.2015.

4.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed the written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable in this Forum and the complainant has not come in

                        Manglesh Kumar Vs. RGIC

                                        …3…

this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material and necessary facts. In fact, the complainant has intimated the opposite party about the alleged theft  of motor-cycle after delay of 10 days. The complainant got registered the FIR after delay of 13 days. In this way it is clear cut violation of condition No.1 of insurance policy which is reproduced as under:-

“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may be rise to the claim under this police. In case of theft or criminal act which may be subject of a claim under this policy the insurance shall given immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in security the conviction of the offender”.  

5.     In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of RC Ex. C-2, copy of  driving licence Ex. C-3, copy of policy Ex. C-4, copy of application Ex. C-5, copy of FIR Ex. C-6, copy of untraced report dated 13.2.2015 Ex. C-7, copy of letter dated 28.2.2015 Ex. C-8 and copy of letter Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of Sh.

                        Manglesh Kumar Vs. RGIC

                                        …4…

Amit Chawla, Deputy Manager Ex. OP-1, copy of letter dated 28.2.2015 Ex. OP-2, copy of letter Ex. OP-3, copy of policy Ex. OP-4, copy of instruction Ex. OP-5, copy of investigation report Ex. OP-6, copy of investigation report Ex. OP-7, copy of statement of Manglesh Kumar Ex. OP-8, copy of statement of Ramesh Kumar Ex. OP-9, copy of statement of Atul Kumar Ex. OP-10 and copy of FIR Ex. OP-11 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as perused the record placed on file. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite party reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.     Admittedly, the motor-cycle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party vide policy No.2004542312018865 cover note No.WO6121410677 (Ex. C-4) for the period from 12.6.2014 to 11.6.2015 for a sum of Rs.36,575/- in the name of Manglesh Kumar complainant. The motor-cycle of the complainant in question was stolen on 1.9.2014 during the subsistence of the policy and claim lodged by the complainant was not honoured by the opposite party whereas it is case of the opposite party that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy as the theft had taken place on 1.9.2014 and FIR was lodged on 14.9.2014 i.e. after  a delay of 13 days. Even the intimation was given to the opposite party after a gap of 10 days. As the FIR has been lodged after 13 days and intimation was given

                        Manglesh Kumar Vs. RGIC

                                        …5…

after 10 days, hence the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Ld. Counsel of opposite party referred the case law titled as Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 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. Vs. 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. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Om Parkash Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2012 (III) CPJ page 59 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 loses 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.

 

                        Manglesh Kumar Vs. RGIC

                                        …6…

8.     Further in the case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane First Appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 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.     Further in case titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil (NC) 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.

10.    In the present case, it is admitted fact that vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and the same was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy and the FIR was registered on 14.9.2014 i.e. after delay of 13 days but the complainant has not mentioned in his complaint when information was given to the

                        Manglesh Kumar Vs. RGIC

                                        …7…

opposite party. However, he has written in his complaint that the information was given to the opposite party immediately but this plea is not supported by the credible evidence. It reveals that the intimation was given to the insurance company after a delay of 10 days and FIR was lodged after a delay of 13 days. 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 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.

11.    In view of the above discussion, We are of the considered view that complainant has intimated the opposite party after a gap of  10 days which is in violation of terms and conditions of the policy Ex. OP-5. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party referred the terms and conditions mentioned in the Insurance Policy. 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, we are of the  considered view that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy and opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim  of the complainant. The authorities (supra) tendered by the opposite party is fully applicable in the present case. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and  the present complaint is

 

 

                        Manglesh Kumar Vs. RGIC

                                        …8…

 hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their own expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced on: 29.4.2016

                                                                      President,

       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                                                  Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                        Manglesh Kumar Vs. RGIC

                                       

Present:-    Sh. R.S. Malik, Adv. for the complainant.

                Sh. J.B. Goyal, Adv.for the opposite party. 

 

                Arguments heard.  To come up on  29.4.2016 for orders.

                                                                                                President,

                   Member                   Membr                                   DCDRF,Jind

                                                                                                 25.4.2016

 

Present:-    Sh. R.S. Malik, Adv. for the complainant.

                Sh. J.B. Goyal, Adv.for the opposite party. 

                   Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

President,

                   Member          Member                                        DCDRF/Jind

                                                                                                29.4.2016