DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 106 of 28.3.2017
Decided on: 9.4.2018
Harinder Kaur aged about 49 years , wife of Sh.Amar Singh, Permanent resident of village mandhor Adarsh Nagar Ambala City, Haryana.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. The General Manager, Reliance General Insurance, 2nd Floor, S.C.O.-147-148, Madhya Marg, Sector 9C, Chandigarh, Chandigarh-Haryana 160009.
2. The General Manager , Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, H Block, 1st Floor, Dhiru Bhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai 4000710.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sukhmanjot Bir Singh,Advocate, counsel for
complainant.
Sh.Amit Gupta,Advocate, counsel for opposite parties
No.1&2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Harinder Kaur, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) .
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant got his vehicle Sonilika Tractor bearing No.HR-01-AD-9121 insured for the period from 18:06 Hrs on 17 Feb 2016 to 23:59 Hrs of 16 Feb.2017 vide policy No.2004252343006013, cover Note No.R17021621766 for Rs.7726/-, from Op no.1. The said tractor was stolen on 25.3.2016 from NH No.1, Rajpura to Ambala Road Near ( My Village Dhaba) in the area of Rajpura, District Patiala at about 9PM, when son of the complainant namely Parvinder Singh stopped the tractor there for refreshment. FIR No.42 dated 26.3.2016 under Section 379 IPC was registered in Police Station Shambu Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala .The stolen tractor could not be traced out and the police officials filed untraceable report to its head on 30.7.2016. Said report was recommended by circle Officer on 11.8.2016.The report was sent to SSP Patiala which was recommended on 12.12.2016. The report of police was also accepted by the Judicial Court, Rajpura on 11.2.2017. He also made communications with the OPs but no response was given by them. Legal notices dated 1.3.2017 and 8.3.2017 were also got served upon the OPs to release the insurance claim but to no effect. There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to pay the insurance claim of Rs.5,95,000/-; to pay the installments whyich complainant was made to pay after the theft of the tractor; to pay Rs.50,000/- i.e. Rs.25000+25000, the rent paid by the complainant for bringing rented tractor for agriculture work;to pay Rs.1,50,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment; to pay rs.20,000/-as litigation expenses and Rs.500/- the cost of legal notice .
3. On being put to notice, OPs appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the tractor in question was hypothecated with Indusind Bank Ltd. and without impleading financer as necessary party in the array of the OPs, the present complaint cannot be decided. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the tractor in question bearing engine No.703453 and chassis No.548F10 , having registration No.HR-01AD-9121 stands insured with the OP vide policy No.2004252343006013 for the period from 17.2.2016 to 16.2.2017. It is stated that the complainant intimated with regard to the theft of the tractor on 31.5.2016 i.e. with a delay of 68 days after the date of loss on 25.3.2016. The OPs also deputed Sh.Sachin Gulati, Investigator, who has submitted his report. After considering everything on record, the competent authority, vide letter dated 4.6.2016 requested for the clarification with regard to the delayed intimation to the company but no reply was received from the complainant and left with no option but to repudiate the claim vide letter dated 30.6.2016.There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CB affidavit of Sh.Parvinder Singh , alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C15 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The ld. counsel for the OPs No.1&2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory of the OPs alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence of the OPs.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Admittedly the vehicle in question was duly insured with the OPs for the period from 17.2.2016 to 16.2.2017,vide policy document Ex.OP1. The said vehicle was stolen on 25.3.2016 at Rajpura-Ambala Highway Road NH1, during the subsistence of the policy. The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs which was repudiated by them vide letter dated 30.6.2016,Ex.OP5 on two grounds, firstly that the reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle in question were not followed, secondly there was delay of 68 days in intimating the insurance company from the date of occurrence of the incidence. As such there was breach of conditions no.1&5 of the policy. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that, the vehicle in question was stolen from the parking of road side dhaba when the son of the complainant namely Parvinder Singh, went into dhaba for refreshment . The said Sh.Parvinder Singh informed the insurance company within 2-3 days after the theft of the vehicle. Thus there was no delay in informing the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle in question. If there was any delay, even then the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim on this ground. While saying so he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another IV(2017) CPJ 10 (SC). On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the OPs has submitted that the complainant had informed the insurance company after a delay of 68 days from the date of occurrence of the incidence and even at the time of the theft of the vehicle no due care was taken by the complainant to safeguard the vehicle in question. Vide letter dated 4.6.2016,Ex.OP3 the complainant was requested to give the reasons for the late intimation and to provide certain documents . But the complainant had neither explained any reason for the delay nor supplied the requisite documents. The OPs thus left with no alternative but to repudiate the claim vide letter dated 30.6.2016,Ex.OP5.
7. In the complaint, it is no where averred by the complainant that to on which specific date she had informed the insurance company about the theft of the impugned vehicle. However, the son of the complainant namely Parvinder Singh, in his affidavit, Ex.CB, has deposed that he informed about the theft of the said vehicle to the agent of the OPs vide letter dated 28.3.2016,Ex.C14 and on the asking of the said agent he informed the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle in question on 31.5.2016.The delay is due to the negligence of the agent and cannot be said to be on the part of the complainant. From the above said letter dated 28.3.2016, it is evident that, it has not been addressed to anybody. Even no proof with regard to the receipt of the said letter by the agent has been placed on record by the complainant. Thus, on the basis of the said letter, it cannot be concluded that the son of the complainant had informed the agent of the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle in question on 28.3.2016. From the record it is evident that the information regarding the theft of the vehicle was given to the insurance company on 31.5.2016. It may be stated here that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As per condition No.1 of policy document, Ex.OP1, which reads as under:
Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and 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 the knowledge ……………………..”
the complainant was duty bound to inform the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the theft of her vehicle.Whereas from the documents placed on record, it is evident that there is delay of 68days in informing the insurance company from the date of occurrence of the incidence. In the case of Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another IV(2017) CPJ 10 (SC), on which the ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance , the delay was only of 8 days and a cogent reason was given to explain the said delay. However, in the present case, there is inordinate delay of 68 days in informing the insurance company from the date of occurrence of the incidence and the reason given for the said delay is not well founded. Since the facts of the present case are different from the facts mentioned in the case Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another IV(2017) CPJ 10 (SC), (supra) therefore, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the said case is not applicable to the present case. It may be stated here that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. Vs. Parveen Chander Chadha, Civil appeal No.6739 of 2010, has categorically held that in terms of the policy, issued by the insurance company, the insured was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incidence. Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get an enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. Similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble Suprme Court, in the case of Mohammadali Liyakatali Pathan Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. RP No.3183 of 2011 decided on 12.7.2012.
8. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the cases Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. Vs. Parveen Chander Chadha and Mohammadali Liyakatali Pathan Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), we hereby dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant . Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:9.4.2018 NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
