Haryana

Ambala

CC/185/2018

Manjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UII - Opp.Party(s)

05 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  185 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         :  08.06.2018

                                                          Date of decision   :  05.11.2018

 

 

Manjeet  Singh s/o Sh. Late Gurcharan Singh R/o Village Aujlan, P.O. Durana, Tehsil Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.

 

……. Complainant.

                                                          Vs.

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd through its Branch Manager,  Bal Bhawan Road, Polytechnic Chowk, Ambala City-134003.

 

….…. Opposite Party

  

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

Coram:       SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                   DR.SUSHMA GARG, MEMBER.

 

                            

Present:       Sh. Harpreet Singh Baidwan, counsel for complainant.

Sh. Deepak Sharma, counsel for the Op.

 

 

ORDER

Per Dr. Sushma Garg, Member:

The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant’s motorcycle bearing registration No.HR 01- AC-8064, which was insured with the Opposite Party vide policy No. 1101023117p105378390, got stolen on 28.07.2017 from outside the SDM’s office during the subsistence of the Policy. The complainant firstly tried at his own level to trace the Motorcycle, however when failed to trace it, lodged FIR No.290 with the police authorities on 4.8.2017 i.e. within a week’s period. The police also tried to trace it, but no fruitful results. Complainant lodged insurance claim with the opposite party, however the OP failed to settle the complaint., hence this complaint with this forum praying for the award of insured value along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony, pain and harassment and further a sum of Rs. 10000/-  has been claimed as litigation expenses.

2. In reply, the OP has pleaded that the claim with the opposite party was lodged after 95 days of the occurrence, hence the same was highly delayed, whereas as per the conditions of the policy, the complainant was required to immediately inform the OP about the incidence of theft. Hence the claim has been repudiated as per the terms of the policy.
3. The complainant in his evidence tendered his Affidavit Ex -CA,  copy of the insurance policy- Ex. C1,  copy of RC- C2, copy of FIR-C3, Copy of untraceable report of police-Ex. C4, copy of letter of OP to registering authority for cancellation of RC of the vehicle- Ex-C5, copy letter by the complainant to SDM/registration  authority Ex- C6 and copy of letter of registration authority cancelling the RC of the vehicle as Ex-C7 and closed his evidence.
4. The OP in its evidence tendered affidavit of the AO of OP as EX RW/A, terms of insurance policy R-1, copy of letter of complainant – R2, copy of letter of the OP to registration authority-R3, copy of letter of investigator Ex- R4 and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. A perusal of the evidence led by both the parties reveals that though the claim of insurance for theft of the vehicle was lodged by the complainant with the OP after about  95 days from the date of occurrence, however the OP never repudiated the claim of the complainant. Rather the OP proceeded to investigate the claim. A perusal of the letter EX-R4 reveals that the investigator of the OP had investigated the case and he had also raised certain queries from the complainant , however the report of the investigator has not been placed on the file by the OP, for the reasons best known to the officials of the OP. Even there is no pleading that the claim of the complainant was false.  Even the OP also proceeded to settle the claim, that is why they have written a letter to the registration authority for cancelation of the registration of the vehicle which was in the name of the complainant.
6. Admittedly, the complainant lodged the FIR with the police authorities with in seven days of the occurrence. The counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant immediately informed the police authorities about the theft incidence, however the formal FIR was lodged only after 6 days.
7. Now coming to the policy conditions, the relevant part of the condition read as under:

“ 1. 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 knowledge of any impeding prosecution inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.”

8. A perusal of the above condition shows that in case of accidental loss or damage, the complainant is supposed to immediately inform the OP in writing, however in case of theft or other criminal act, he is required to give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the insurance company in securing the conviction of the offender. In the case in hand, though the claim was belatedly lodged with the OP, however the information about the occurrence was given to the Police within a reasonable time. Hence it can not be said in strict terms that the condition of the policy stood violated. Even the police had also investigated the case. Even the investigation has also been carried out by the insurance company through its investigator, whose report has been not produced on file, thus concealed by the insurance company. Since there was no violation of the above condition in strict terms, hence the OP even did not repudiate the claim in express terms by way of writing any letter to the complainant. The plea of repudiation has been taken for the first time in the reply to the complaint, without producing the relevant evidences such as report of the concerned official and that of investigator.

9.       In view of the above discussion, we find merit in the complaint and the same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to pay to the complainant the sum insured amount  of the Motorcycle in question (i.e. Rs. 22,000/- as per policy Annexure R-1) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date which comes after two months from the date of lodging of the claim with the Insurance Company till realization. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- is awarded as litigation expenses to be payable by the OP to the complainant. The orders be complied within 30 days of the communication. Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

  Announced on:05.11.2018                       

 

 

 

   (Pushpender Kumar)         (DR.Sushma Garg)               (D.N.Arora)                Member                         Member                             President

                                                                  District Consumer Disputes

                    Redressal Forum, Ambala