Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Gopal Singh  has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the allegations that the complainant got his scooter insured, make Honda Activa bearing RC No.PB02-CT-8051, having Chassis No.ME4JF493JF8040685, engine No.JF49E81047163 from Opposite Party  vide policy No.2003013115P107811354 valid for the period from 5.10.2015 to 4.10.2016. On 8.8.2016, at about 7.40 pm, the son of the complainant namely Satnam Singh was coming back to his house from his shop on his aforesaid Honda scooter and when he reached near Nirankari School, Opposite Kot Karnail Singh, on that three unidentified persons who covered their face with handkerchief stopped their motor cycle in front of the scooter of the complainant in question and on person sitting pillion on said motor cycle gave blow of his dater  which hit on right arm of Satnam Singh son of complainant and he fell down on the road, on that said persons after snatching the scooter of the complainant ran away from the spot.   Son of the complainant received injury and he was got admitted in the hospital, and the matter was reported to the police and FIR No. 205 dated 8.8.2016 was got registered on the statement of Satnam Singh son of the complainant. On the next day, the complainant went to the office of Opposite Party  and informed regarding the incident and snatching of scooter and thereafter, all the requisite documents were given to the Opposite Party  including FIR. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Party   and enquired about the  claim, but  the Opposite Party  repudiated the claim of the complainant and informed the complainant vide letter dated 22.9.2016 on the ground of late intimation, but however, the complainant on the very next day informed the officials of the Opposite Party  about the incident. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party be directed to release the amount of the claim to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

b)      Opposite Party be directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant.

c)       Opposite Party be directed to pay the  adequate cost of the present litigation.  

d)      Any other relief to which the complainant is found under the law, equity and justice be also allowed.  

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party  appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that complainant has filed a baseless, frivolous and imaginary claim with ulterior motives. On merits, it was averred that  the complainant has informed to the Opposite Party  about  the alleged incident of snatching of scooter in question on 22.9.2016, but the alleged incident has been taken place on 8.8.2016 meaning thereby the  complainant has informed about the alleged incident after a span of almost 1 ½ months. It is denied that the complainant has informed about the alleged incident on the next day to the Opposite Party . No document  in the shape of intimation letter has been placed on record by the complainant in order to prove the aforesaid fact which clearly manifests that the present complaint is just a bunch of lies and nothing else. As such, the present complaint is not maintainable at all. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.P.S.Maan, Deputy Manager Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex. OP1 to Ex.OP3  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint and submitted that the complainant  got his scooter insured, make Honda Activa bearing RC No.PB02-CT-8051, having Chassis No.ME4JF493JF8040685, engine No.JF49E81047163 from Opposite Party  vide policy No.2003013115P107811354 valid for the period from 5.10.2015 to 4.10.2016. On 8.8.2016, at about 7.40 pm, the son of the complainant namely Satnam Singh was coming back to his house from his shop on his aforesaid Honda scooter and when he reached near Nirankari School, Opposite Kot Karnail Singh, on that three unidentified persons who covered their face with handkerchief stopped their motor cycle in front of the scooter of the complainant in question and on person sitting pillion on said motor cycle gave blow of his dater  which hit on right arm of Satnam Singh son of complainant and he fell down on the road, on that said persons after snatching the scooter of the complainant ran away from the spot.   Son of the complainant received injury and he was got admitted in the hospital, and the matter was reported to the police and FIR No. 205 dated 8.8.2016 was got registered on the statement of Satnam Singh son of the complainant. On the next day, the complainant went to the office of Opposite Party  and informed regarding the incident and snatching of scooter and thereafter, all the requisite documents were given to the Opposite Party  including FIR. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Party   and enquired about the  claim, but  the Opposite Party  repudiated the claim of the complainant and informed the complainant vide letter dated 22.9.2016 on the ground of late intimation, but however, the complainant on the very next day informed the officials of the Opposite Party  about the incident.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the ld.counsel for the complainant  on the ground that  the complainant has informed to the Opposite Party  about  the alleged incident of snatching of scooter in question on 22.9.2016, but the alleged incident has been taken place on 8.8.2016 meaning thereby the  complainant has informed about the alleged incident after a span of almost 1 ½ months. It is denied that the complainant has informed about the alleged incident on the next day to the Opposite Party . No document  in the shape of intimation letter has been placed on record by the complainant in order to prove the aforesaid fact which clearly manifests that the present complaint is just a bunch of lies and nothing else.    As such, the present complaint is not maintainable at all.

8.       But however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes  evident that the complainant got insurance policy  for his Activa scooter, make Honda Activa bearing RC No.PB02-CT-8051, having Chassis No.ME4JF493JF8040685, engine No.JF49E81047163 from Opposite Party  vide policy No.2003013115P107811354 valid for the period from 5.10.2015 to 4.10.2016, copy of policy is Ex.OP3 which proves that the  IDV of the insured scooter was Rs. 53836/-.  It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle in dispute unfortunately on 8.8.2016, at about 7.40 pm, the son of the complainant namely Satnam Singh was coming back to his house from his shop on his aforesaid Honda scooter and when he reached near Nirankari School, Opposite Kot Karnail Singh, on that three unidentified persons who covered their face with handkerchief stopped their motor cycle in front of the scooter of the complainant in question and on person sitting pillion on said motor cycle gave blow of his dater  which hit on right arm of Satnam Singh son of complainant and he fell down on the road, on that said persons after snatching the scooter of the complainant ran away from the spot.   Son of the complainant received injury and he was got admitted in the hospital, and the matter was reported to the police and FIR No. 205 dated 8.8.2016 was got registered and lateron also given the intimation regarding the snatching of the vehicle to the Opposite Party, but even then if it is presumed that Opposite Party was intimated  by the complainant  at a very belated stage i.e after about 1 ½ months from the date of occurrence as alleged by the Opposite Party, even then the genuine claim of the complainant can not be thrown away simply on the basis of delay in intimating the matter to the Opposite Party as admittedly, the complainant has already reported the matter regarding the theft of vehicle in question to police immediately after the date of occurrence and this fact has even not denied by the Opposite Party. Moreover, it is the duty of the police to search/ trace out the stolen vehicle at their own level and to give the untraced report of the vehicle in question, if any. As such, the complainant has tried to trace out the vehicle in question at his best level before informing the Opposite Party in this regard before filing the instant claim. So, the intention of the complainant is bonafide to search the vehicle at his own level before filing the present claim.  But however, the Opposite Party has repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds that the intimation regarding the incident has been intimated  to them at belated stage. But however, that can not be treated to be a valid ground for declining the claim.  

9.       Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant admitted the actual position as referred to above. However, learned counsel argued that even if for arguments sake it is admitted that the matter was not immediately reported to the insurer the complainant is not likely to loose his entire insurance claim. The Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim of the complainant on “non standard basis” even if some of the conditions of the insurance policy are not adhered by the insured. Learned counsel in support of his above contention has relied upon the case titled National Insurance Company Limited versus Kamal Singhal IV (2010)CPJ297 (NC) wherein the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi relying upon various decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of (1) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. J. P. Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. (RP No. 643/2005), (2) Punjab Chemical Agency v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (RP No. 2097/2009), (3) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bahrati Rajiv Bankar, (RP) No. 3294/2009) and (4) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jeetmal, (RP No.3366/2009) and also judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Insurance Company Versus Nitin Khandewal IV (2008) CPJ 1(SC), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held in the matter of theft of a vehicle, breach of condition of the policy was not germane and also held further that :

 “ the appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy to the loss caused to the insurer”.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that;

“ even assuming that there was a breach of policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on “non-standard basis.”

Hon'ble Apex Court in back drop of these features, in these cases, allowed 70% of the claim of the claimant on the “non-standard basis”.

This view was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Amalendu Sahoo versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited. II(2010) CPJ 9(SC)=II (2010)SLT 672.

That the Hon'ble National Commission in the case National Insurance Company Limited versus Kamal Singhal referred to above relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that;

“there being a long line of decisions on this score, we have no option but to uphold the finding of Fora below with modification that the claim be settled on 'non-standard' basis”, in terms of the guidelines issued by the Insurance Company. In case petitioner company fails to carry out the direction contained therein, the amount payable on 'non-standard' basis, shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of expiry of six weeks till the date of actual payment”.

10.     Having regard to the position of the law, as has been laid down, by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the various decisions referred to herein above and also the view expressed by the Hon'ble National Commission, we are of the considered view that in the present case the complainant, if not entitled for the entire insured amount, the Insurance Company definitely ought to have settled the complainant's claim on 'non-standard basis”, which in the facts and circumstances taking the assistance of the view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also by the Hon'ble National Commission, we allow 70% of the claim of the complainant on 'non-standard' basis”.  The IDV of the vehicle in question is Rs.53,836/-. Hence, the 70% of the IDV amount of the vehicle i.e Rs. 37,685. 20 paisa (Rs.37,685/- in round figure) be paid to the complainant  by the Opposite Party  with interest @ 9% p.a within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till the date   subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of RC of the vehicle in question  in favour of the Opposite Party, by the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 31.05.2017.