BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No.177 of 2014 Date of Institution: 28.04.2014
Date of Decision: 06.07.2015
Davinder Kumar Grover son of Prem Chand Grover, resident of Street No.1, 3rd Chowk, Model Town, Abohar, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka.
....... Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited, Near Sandeep Theatre, Abohar, Tehsil Abohar, through its Branch Manager.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. S.P. Khariwal, representative
For the opposite party : Sh. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate
QUORUM
C.C. No.177 of 2014
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Earlier this complaint was dismissed in default of appearance of the complainant by this Forum vide order dated 7.7.2014. The complainant preferred First Appeal No.1085 of 2014, titled as Davinder Kumar Grover Versus United India Insurance Company Limited against the said order dated 7.7.2014 before the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order dated 10.3.2015, set aside the order dated 7.7.2014 passed by this Forum and restored the complaint at its original number with a direction to decide the same in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the present complaint was restored at its original number.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant got insured his Verna (Hyundai) car bearing Registration No.PB-42-C-0065 for IDV of Rs.7,00,000/- from the opposite party vide insurance policy bearing
C.C. No.177 of 2014
No.200101/31/11/11/01/00011903, which was valid from 11.2.2012 to 10.2.2013. The said car was being used for personal/domestic purpose. During the continuation of the policy, the insured car was parked outside the residential premises of the complainant on the night of 12/13.1.2013. When the complainant got up in the morning of 13.1.2013 and found the broken glass of the car there and the car was missing. It appeared that some unidentified persons committed theft of the above said car of the complainant on the night of 12/13.1.2013. The documents including the insurance papers were also in the car and after parking, the car was properly locked. The matter was immediately reported to the police and an FIR No.10 dated 13.1.2013 in Police Station City, Abohar under Section 379 IPC was registered. The complainant also intimated the opposite party regarding theft of the car. On receipt of copy of the report and information, the opposite party appointed Surveyor/Investigator, who reported to have conducted the preliminary investigation and submitted the report to the opposite party. The complainant supplied all the relevant information to the opposite party, but his claim has not been settled by the opposite party. Hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to settle the claim of Rs.7,00,000/- of the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum. Further a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been claimed as compensation for harassment and Rs.4000/- as litigation expenses.
C.C. No.177 of 2014
3. Opposite party filed its written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that Branch Office of United India Insurance Company Limited at Abohar issued a Motor Cover Note No.200101/31/11/01/ 00011903 covering Hyundai Verna Car bearing No.PB-42-C-0065 for the period from 11.2.2012 to 10.2.2013 for IDV of Rs.7,00,000/-. On intervening night of 12.1.2013, the vehicle was stolen from outside of the residence of the insured. On receipt of the claim intimation dated 13.2.2013 from the insured, the competent authority deputed S.A. Investigating & Consulting Agency for investigation of the theft case. The Investigator submitted his report dated 2.3.2012 in the Regional Office, Ludhiana. On going through the claim file, it was observed that the insured had informed the office about the theft of the vehicle after a gap of one month, thus, violating condition No.1 of the policy. The insured was requested many a times in verbal and written to submit Non-traceable report under Section 173 from the concerned police station, NCRB report with the conformation that the said vehicle has been stolen and updated on their site, reasons for delay in submission of claim intimation in the office and proof of media news about theft of car. The insured has not complied with the basic requirements of the claim and as such the present complaint is pre-mature. Further it has been pleaded that in theft claim, Transfer of R.C. in the name of Insurance Company and Letter of Subrogation on stamp paper
C.C. No.177 of 2014
duly notarized etc. are also to be fulfilled by the insured after acceptance of claim of the insurance company. Further it has been pleaded that after receiving the investigation report of the Investigator, it came to light that the insured informed the insurance company about loss on 13.2.2013, whereas his car was stolen on 13.1.2013 i.e. after about one month after the loss. Even the proof of any media news about theft of car on 13.1.2013 and latest NCRB Report have not been submitted by the insured. Accordingly, vide letter dated 31.1.2014 and 18.6.2014, the above said explanation were sought from the complainant and production of the aforesaid material documents were also sought by the opposite party, but the complainant failed to comply with the said mandatory requirement for processing his claim. Thereafter, reminder dated 2.7.2014 was issued to the complainant for the same purpose, whereby the complainant was requested to follow up the matter with the police authorities regarding updating of FIR and arrange to send NCRB Report, but the complainant has failed to supply NCRB Report and Non-Traceable Report to proceed further in regard to his theft claim. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Representative of the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand,
C.C. No.177 of 2014
learned counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9 and closed evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
4. We have heard the representative of the complainant, learned counsel for the opposite party and have also gone through the file.
5. It is the admitted case of the parties that one car of the complainant make Verna Hyundai bearing Registration No.PB-42-C-0065 was insured with the opposite party vide Private Care Package Policy Ex.C-4 for IDV of Rs.7,00,000 /-, which was valid from 11.2.2012 to 10.2.2013. The grievance of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the said car was stolen and the complainant lodged claim in this regard with the opposite party, but the opposite party has not settled his claim so far despite completion of all the required formalities. The opposite party has pleaded that the claim of the complainant has not been settled so far, as the complainant had informed the opposite party about the theft of the vehicle after a gap of one month, which is in violation of condition No.1 of the policy and further he was requested many a times in verbal and written to submit Non-traceable report under Section 173 from the concerned police station, NCRB report with the conformation that the said vehicle has been stolen and updated on their site, reasons for delay in submission of claim intimation in the
C.C. No.177 of 2014
office and proof of media news about theft of car, but he has not complied with the basic requirements of the claim despite letter dated 31.1.2014 Ex.OP-5, 18.6.2014 and reminder thereto dated 2.7.2014 Ex.OP-2 and as such the present complaint is pre-mature. So far as delayed submission of intimation regarding theft of the car in question to the opposite party is concerned, the complainant in response to the communication of the opposite party vide letter dated 25.3.2014, copy of which has been placed on the file as Ex.C-6, has duly explained that the necessary insurance papers were in theft car and accordingly, information could not be given to the insurance company. He has further explained that the insurance policy had expired on 10.2.2013 and on the expiry date of insurance, he got call from the insurance agent indicating that the policy has been expired on 10.2.2013 and needs renewal and thereafter, the complainant after knowing the name of the company with which vehicle was insured, informed the insurance company on 13.2.2013. This fact is also evident from photo copy of letter dated 13.2.2013 placed on the file by the opposite party as Ex.OP-9. Therefore, the reasons for delay in submission of intimation regarding theft of the car has been duly explained by the complainant. As per the instructions issued by the IRDA vide Circular No.IRDA/Health/Misc./Cir/216/09/2011 dated 20.9.2011, the insurer must not repudiate the claim unless and until the reasons for delay are specifically
C.C. No.177 of 2014
ascertained, recorded and the insurer should satisfy themselves that the delayed claim would otherwise have been rejected, if reported in time. In the present case, admittedly the opposite party deputed S.A. Investigating & Consulting Agency, Pathankot as Investigator to investigate the claim, who investigated the matter and vide report dated 2.3.2013 Ex.OP-6, the said Investigator has opined that while taking into consideration the findings of the investigation, it has come to light that the vehicle number PB-42-C-0065 has been genuinely stolen by some unknown persons on the reported date and time of loss; the verifications at the spot of loss have confirmed that the above loss has taken place on the reported date of loss; the police case is registered with the police at PS City-1, Abohar vide FIR No.10/2013 u/s 379 IPC, which was under investigation; both the keys of the vehicle have been submitted by the insured; the RC of the vehicle was stolen with the vehicle; and the witnesses have confirmed the genuineness of the loss, which has taken place within the currency of the insurance policy. Therefore, genuineness of the theft/loss has been confirmed by the report of the Investigator of the opposite party. As such, delay in intimation regarding theft of the car in question cannot be made a hurdle in settlement of the claim of the complainant. Moreover, a perusal of reminder dated 2.7.2014 Ex.OP-2 reveals that the claim of the complainant on account of theft of the car in question has not been settled by the opposite party for want of
C.C. No.177 of 2014
latest NCRB Report and Non-Traceable Report. Therefore, in our opinion, the insurance claim on account of theft of the car in question, cannot denied to the complainant at this stage for want of latest NCRB Report and Non-Traceable Report. In our view, the complainant should be granted some more time to submit the latest NCRB Report and Non-Traceable Report to the opposite party for settlement of his claim on account of theft of his insured car.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is disposed off and the complainant is directed to submit latest NCRB Report and Non-Traceable Report, as requisitioned vide Letter/reminder dated 2.7.2014 Ex.OP-2, to the opposite party and the opposite party is directed to settle the insurance claim of the complainant on account of theft of the car in question within a further period of thirty days from the date of submission of latest NCRB Report and Non-Traceable Report by the complainant.
7. Arguments in this case were heard on 22.6.2015 and the case was reserved for orders. Now the orders be communicated to the parties. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
06.07.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
