Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/161

Rajinder Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Balraj Singh Adv

06 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA

 

Consumer Complaint No.161 of 01.03.2016

Date of Decision        :   06.01.2017

 

Rajinder Pal Verma aged 64 years son of Sh.Paras Ram Verma, resident of L-7, Housing Board Colony, Narotam Nagar, Khanna, District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Officer, Near Natraj Cinema, G.T.Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

 

..…Opposite parties

 

(Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :       Sh.Balraj Singh, Advocate

For Op                           :        Sh.Baljeet Sharma, Advocate

 

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant, the owner of LML Vespa scooter bearing registration No.PB-26-E-8442 of model 2010, purchased policy from OP bearing No.2006033114P106878740 dated 30.11.2014 with validity upto 29.11.2015. That scooter stood stolen on 15.10.2015 from the area of Sai Mandir, Amloh Road, Khanna. Complainant after parking the said scooter at the above said place on 15.10.2015 at about 7:45 PM, returned back from the Temple within 20-25 minutes and was astonished to see that scooter was not there at the parking place. Complainant failed to trace out the scooter, despite efforts and thereafter, he filed written complaint with SHO of P.S.Sadar, Khanna, District Ludhiana on 16.10.2015, on the basis of which, FIR NO.193 dated 16.10.2015 under Section 379 IPC was registered at P.S.Sadar, Khanna. On 16.11.2015, the complainant moved letter with OP along with relevant documents for lodging the claim, but OP replied through letter  of 8.12.2015 for repudiating the claim. Thereafter, despite repeated approaches by the complainant to OP, they refused to accept the claim and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, prayer made for directing OP to settle the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/- even claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OP, it is pleaded interalia as if the complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not approached  this Forum with clean hands because he has suppressed the material facts; there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP because claim duly repudiated after due consideration. No intimation regarding the alleged loss of the vehicle was given to the OP immediately after the alleged loss. However, intimation was given only on 16.11.2015, despite the fact that loss occurred on 15.10.2015. In view of the lapse of one month in giving intimation to the insurance company, claim is not payable to the complainant for want of compliance of the mandatory conditions of the policy. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured with OP. It is claimed that copy of FIR never supplied to the insurance company despite the alleged loss. Repudiation of claim defended by claiming that officials of company fully applied their mind. Each and every other averments of the complaint denied.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, he along with his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.J.S.Khera, Manager Legal of OP along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                 Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured with OP as revealed by contents of copy of insurance cover note Ex.C8 or Ex.R1. Claim of the insurance was lodged by the complainant after the alleged theft of the vehicle in question on 15.10.2015, but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 8.12.2015 Ex.C4=Ex.R4 on the ground that intimation of the theft was given on 16.11.2015, despite the alleged theft having occurred on 15.10.2015. Even it is the case of the complainant that he gave intimation to the OP on 16.11.2015 through letter Ex.C3. However, application regarding the loss of the scooter in question submitted with SHO, P.S.Sadar, Khanna on 16.10.2015 as revealed by contents of Ex.C1. Report of untraceability submitted on 16.1.2016 by ASI Bakshish Singh is a fact borne from the contents of Ex.C2. So, bone of contention remains as to whether the repudiation of the claim is justified or not?

7.                It is vehemently contended by counsel for the complainant that intimation regarding theft was submitted with the police at earliest i.e. on 16.10.2015 through application Ex.C1 and as such, there is no delay in giving intimation of theft to the concerned. However, it is admitted case of the parties and borne from perusal of the produced documents referred above that intimation of the theft was given to the OP by the complainant only on 16.11.2015. In view of late submission of this intimation by the complainant to OP, certainly OP divested of their valuable right of verifying about the incident of theft or of taking immediate steps for getting the vehicle traced.

8.                As per law laid down in case titled as New India Insurance Company Limited vs. Trilochan Jane-IV(2012)CPJ-441(N.C.), if conditions of the insurance policy provides for giving notice in writing by the insured to the insurer immediately upon the accidental loss or damage or of theft, then intimation of theft/loss must be given within 24 hours to the police, otherwise, valuable time will be lost in tracing the vehicle. Likewise, the insurer will also be informed within a day or two, so that it can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and even take immediate steps for getting the vehicle traced. As per ratio of this case, the insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police for tracing the vehicle. So, in this cited case, it has been held that if there is  delay of 9 days in reporting the matter/incident to the insurance company, then the same will be a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, due to which, repudiation of the claim will be justified. Even in case of Bihar State Hyrdo Electric Power Corporation Limited. Vs.  National Insurance Co. Ltd.-2015(1)CLT-292(N.C.), delay of 7 days in reporting the incidence of theft to the insurer was considered fatal to the case of the complainant. Ratio of both these cases is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, particularly when condition of policy Ex.R1 provides that notice in writing must be given to the insurance company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage or of theft of the insured vehicle. That immediate intimation in writing was not at all submitted by the complainant to OP because intimation was given only after one month and one day of the alleged occurrence. In view of the late submission of this intimation by the complainant to OP, he committed violation of the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.R1 and as such repudiation of claim is fully justified. Being so, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                          (G.K.Dhir)

                              Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:06.01.2017

Gobind Sharma.