Delhi

New Delhi

CC/582/2016

Md Sarfaraz Alam - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

27 May 2022

ORDER

 

                                                      CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

                                               (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 582/2016                                              

In the matter of:

      Md. Sarfaraz Alam

    1635-C, Street No.14/15,

    Govindpuri,

   Kalkaji,

  New Delhi-110019

                                                                                                        ....COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

8^th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building,

18, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.

 

                                                                                                   .....OPPOSITE PARTY

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

            Shri.Bariq Ahmad, Member

            Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

                                                                                                Dated of Institution :20.09.2016

                                                                                                Date of Order           : 27.05.2022

O R D E R

ADARSH NAIN, MEMBER

1. The present complaint has been filed against the opposite party (in short OP) under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the complaint in brief are that the complainant was the owner of vehicle (Car) bearing no. DL 9CN 9423 (Swift VDI Colour Azura Grey) which was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the OP Vide Policy no. 0427003115P107253453 valid from 24/09/2015 to 23/09/2016. The said policy is issued for the sum insured Rs. 1,80,000/- which is the IDV of the vehicle in question.
2. It is stated that on 16.01.2016, the complainant’s car was stolen from Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II and the FIR was registered in that regard bearing no.1773 on 16/01/2016, P.S. Crime Branch, New Delhi. The complainant further stated that he was told by the I.O. to wait for the untraced report before intimating the matter to insurance company.
3. It is averred by the complainant that he could not intimate the matter immediately to the insurance company (OP) due to his sickness and lack of knowledge, however, First Information of the incident was given to the police immediately. After recovery from the illness, the complainant immediately reported the matter to the insurance company which was considered by the insurance company and a surveyor was also deputed by the OP who investigated the matter and submitted the report to the company but at the time of payment, the OP Company repudiated the complainant’s claim on the ground of delay in intimation of claim.
4. It is alleged by the complainant that in spite of the promises made by the officials of the OP Company to pay the claim, his claim was repudiated.
5. Hence, the complainant filed the present consumer complaint.
6. OP has contested the case and filed their written version taking preliminary objections that the OP is not liable to pay any alleged claim amount as the claim of the complainant has been rightly and legally repudiated by the OP because the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
7. On merits, it has been averred that since the complainant had given intimation with delay of 82 days, leading to the violation condition no.1 of the policy, OP is not liable to pay any alleged claim amount.
8. It is specifically denied that the officials of the OP company assured the complainant to make the payment after deducting either 10% or 25% delay amount. It is averred that the complainant has created a false and fabricated story while his claim has rightly been repudiated by the OP due to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, it is prayed by OP that the above complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed.
9. The complainant filed his rejoinder to the reply of OP wherein the complainant has denied all the averments and contentions made by OP stating them to be wrong and baseless and reiterated the contents of the complaint as true. Complainant rebutted the allegation of delay and stated that due to sickness and lack of knowledge, he could not report the matter immediately to the insurer.
10. In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and marked the supporting documents namely copy of Registration Certificate (Annexure C-1), Copy of Insurance Policy (Annexure C-2), Copy of FIR (Annexure C-3), Copy of letter from investigator(Annexure C-4)and Repudiation Letter(Annexure C-5).
11. OP has also filed evidence by affidavit reiterating therein the averments made in the reply. It is alleged that there was delay of 82 days in intimating the claim. OP stated that they had repudiated the claim of the complainant rightly on account of breach of condition no.1 which provides for delayed intimation and complaint being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed. Condition no.1 is reproduced as under:
12.  
12.  Ld counsels for the parties filed their respective written arguments and Ld Counsel for the complainant also filed relevant case law.
13. We have heard the learned counsels for parties and perused the record.
14. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that it is not in dispute that the complainant had taken an insurance policy for the vehicle in question nor is it in dispute that the theft took place during subsistence of the policy which was valid on the date of the incident.
15. It is also observed that the complainant had informed the police about the incident on the same day and got the FIR registered to that effect. 
16. It is further observed that the claim of the Complainant was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 30.08.2016. The repudiation letter stated as under:-

“Intimation to the Insurance Company was given on 08.04.2016 i.e. after 82 days.

As per the motor policy Condition No.1, “Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage. In case of theft or other criminal act which may be 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…. "

In view of above facts, as agreed by competent authority, your said claim stands repudiated in view of breach of condition no.1 of the motor policy and inert alia reasons.”

17. Further, on perusal of record, it is observed that the complainant has filed a copy of the Order dated 30..05.2016 passed by Ld. ACMM-01 Saket Courts whereby the Ld. court has accepted the Untraced Report.
18. The perusal of the record shows that the Insurance Company has not repudiated the claim on the ground that the claim was not genuine. The claim has been repudiated on account of breach of condition no.1 which provides for delay in intimation.
19. In support of his contentions, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant placed the reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter titled Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Anr. dated Oct 4,2017 wherein it was held : “ It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject a genuine claim which has already been verified and found to be correct by the investigator. The condition regarding delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine”
20.  In this context, reliance may very well be placed on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case titled Jaina Construction Company vs. Oriental Insurance Company limited and Another 2022 SCC Online SC 175, The relevant extract of the same is as under:-

The District Forum allowed the said claim of the complainant by holding that the complainant was entitled to the insured amount on non-standard basis, i.e., Rs. 12,79,399/- as 75% of the IDV i.e., Rs. 17,05,865/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization from the Insurance Company. The District Forum also awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. The aggrieved Insurance Company preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 612 of 2015 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Haryana), Panchkula. The complainant also preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 537 of 2015 seeking enhancement of compensation. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and partly allowed the appeal filed by the complainant by increasing rate of interest awarded by the District Forum from 6% to 9% vide the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2015. The aggrieved Insurance Company preferred the Revision Petition before the NCDRC, which set aside the order of Hon’ble State Commission and District Commission. The appellant had thereafter preferred an appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Hon’ble National Commission and affirmed the order of Hon’ble State Commission.

21. It is to be noted that in the present case condition No. 1 of the contract for Insurance provides that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of accidental loss on damage in the event of any claim and thereafter insured shall give all such information as company shall refund. Complainant had got FIR registered immediately after the theft on 26.01.2016 and also informed the OP.  There is admittedly delay of about 82 days in lodging the claim before the Insurance Company. However Insurance Company did not repudiate it on the ground that it was not genuine; it had repudiated it on the ground of delay.
22. Thus, in view of the above judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the Complainant is entitled to the Insured amount on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the Insured declared Value with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint till realization. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- is also awarded as litigation expenses. OP is liable to pay the same within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order. In case of delay in the payment beyond 4 weeks OP will be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. for the delayed period.
23. A copy of this order be provided to all parties free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of the order.

POONAM CHAUDHRY

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

                                     

                          BARIQ AHMAD                                                                                             ADARSH NAIN​

                       MEMBER                                                                                                                   MEMBER