DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Complaint  Case No.: 584 OF 2010

Date  of  Institution  :   13.09.2010

Date   of   Decision  :   05.08.2011

Satinder Kumar s/o Sh.B.N. Singh, R/o H.No.5327, Cat-I, Manimajra Housing Complex, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.

                                                        ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

1]        United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office-II, SCO 357-358, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Sr.Branch Manager.

2]        United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Chief Regional Manager.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:        SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                  MEMBER

Argued By:        Sh.Hitender Kansal, Advocate for the complainant

Sh.Aman Preet Singh, Advocate for the OPs.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1]             The instant complaint relates to a grievance about non-payment of insurance claim by the OPs.

                Briefly stated, the complainant was the registered owner of a Indica Car No.CH-04-A-6013, which was comprehensively insured with OPs.  The policy was effective from 28.8.2009 to 27.8.2010.  The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.2,74,940/-.  On 21.11.2009 a colleague of the complainant borrowed the car along with the driver for his personal visit.  When the car was being brought back, the driver offered a lift to some boys, who represented themselves to be the students of a Chandigarh College.  After some distance, the driver stopped the car near a Dhaba for urination.  The keys were left in the ignition and the car was in starting condition.  Taking advantage, the boys sped away with the car.  The driver informed the complainant.  Intimation was given to the Police Station – Divn.No.7 (Vardhman), Ludhiana the very next day.  After much interrogation  and verification of facts, the police registered an F.I.R. No.286, dated 01.12.2009 (Annexure C-2).  The complainant also informed the insurance company and lodged his claim seeking indemnification of loss due to theft.  As the OPs have not settled his claim, the complainant has filed the instant complaint with the prayer that OPs be directed to indemnify the loss along with interest as well as pay compensation for mental tension and harassment.

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

                OPs in their reply have taken the preliminary objections that the complainant has not complied with the terms & conditions of the insurance policy at Ann.R-1.  The F.I.R. was lodged after 10 days.  Also the driver of the vehicle had acted in a grossly negligent manner by giving lift to unknown persons and then leaving the vehicle in running condition with the key inside.  Further immediate intimation of loss/theft was not given to the police and insurance company, which is a violation of terms & conditions of the policy at Ann.R-1.  The process for approval of repudiation of claim was underway when the complainant filed this claim.  As the matter was sub-judice, the repudiation was not sent to him.

                On merits, the OPs have reiterated the delay in lodging of F.I.R. and intimation of loss to the insurer as well as negligence of the driver.  The OPs have therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record as well as written arguments of the complainant and OPs.    

5]             The facts have already been stated above and needs no repetition. 

6]             The claim for insurance is being refused by placing reliance on the following 3 factors:-

(i)        Delay in lodging F.I.R.

(ii)      Delay in lodging claim with OPs.

(iii)     Negligence of the Driver of the vehicle.

7]             A perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. (Ann.,C-2) shows that the complainant and his driver had informed the police the very next day.  They had also tried to trace the car themselves. The complaint was lodged by the Police Station Ludhiana only when they were unable to find it.  Point-8 in F.I.R. (Ann.C-2) is as under:-

“8.Reason for delay in reporting by the complainant/informant: NO DELAY.”

The claim was then filed with the OPs.

8]             When the OPs were informed about the loss of the car of the complainant, they had appointed an Investigator to investigate the claim.  The same investigator has given two different reports on two different dates.

                As per the investigation report, dated 23.2.2010, the claim was allowed in favour of the complainant, subject to submission of Untraced Report by the Police (Ann.R-2). 

                The subsequent investigation report of the same Surveyor, dated 7.5.2010 (Ann.R-3) points to the willful negligence of the driver. No sanction or disapproval of the claim has been recommended.

                The OPs have stated that approval to repudiate the claim was under process.

9]             In the case titled National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamal Singla, IV (2010) CPJ 297 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) — Insurance — Theft — Breach of policy conditions — Claim repudiated — Complainant’s car was insured by OP — Driver on its journey picked up three persons — Three persons took away car when driver went for nature’s call — Informed OP and police about theft — Investigation officer appointed — Claim repudiated on ground of breach of policy, ‘reasonable care’ not taken — District Forum allowed complaint — Appeal dismissed — Hence revision — Driver was not expected to carry key while getting down to answer nature’s call — Claim be settled on ‘non-standard’ basis — Order of Fora below upheld.”

                Relying on the above judgment, the claim cannot be disallowed by pointing out the mistake of the driver. 

                The delay in lodging of F.I.R. has already been explained above.  The complainant and his driver had approached the police authorities the very next day and when the vehicle was not traceable, the F.I.R. was lodged on 01.012.2009. Hence, pointing fingers towards the complainant about the delay in lodging of F.I.R. and claim, in these circumstances does not seem to be a good reason to repudiate the claim.

10]            Certain judgment of various courts, which have dealt with similar situations, are as under:-

i)        Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kandha Nayak, IV(2009) CPJ 96 –Orissa State Commission wherein it has been held that :-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Insurance – Vehicle stolen – Intimation to police and insurer delayed – Claim repudiated by insurer – Deficiency in service alleged – Complaint allowed by Forum – Hence appeal – Consumer Protection Act, a beneficial Act, claim should not be repudiated only on hyper technical grounds – Repudiation on technical ground unjust, arbitrary, made to defeat spirit of legislation – order of Forum upheld.

ii)        Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, 2009(1) CPC 55 – National Commission, New Delhi wherein it has been held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(b) – Insurance claim – Theft of vehicle – Insured vehicle was stolen – Insurer repudiated the claim with the plea that intimation of theft to insurer was delayed – District Forum allowing the complaint on non standard basis awarded payment of 75% of insured amount – Order being well reasoned interference in revision declined.” 

Iii)        Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash Gupta & Anr., I(2009) CPJ 183 (NC) wherein it has been held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(10(g) – Insurance – Vehicle stolen – Claim repudiated by insurer – Once police registered the case under Section 379 IPC, loss comes within definition of theft – Question of breach of trust will not affect right of person, who lost the vehicle – Insurer liable under policy.”

Iv)        Nobel Grain India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2008(2) CPC 45 (N.C.) wherein it has been held that:-

“….Delayed information to insurer cannot be made a ground of repudiation of claim – acting upon the guideline for the settlement of non standard claim of 75% claim is allowed.”

v)        Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Vs. Khursheed and another, Civil Writ Petition No.3996 of 2011 of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided on 22.3.2011, wherein it has been held that :-

“…Insurance Companies are charging hefty premium for insuring the vehicles. Once the question of liability arises, the companies resort to one technical objection and the other.  These Companies really chase people and literally promise everything at the time of selling policy.  It is usual to see people struggle to run after agents and surveyors to get their rightful claims.  Such agents then look other way and make insurers to make rounds to Company offices.  Insurers are then made to approach the Courts and are even dragged to this Court on one technical plea or the other.  No one really is made to read the terms while making him to sign on the printed forms for selling policies.  This attitude must change. Atleast, the Courts should not be burdened with this uncalled for litigation”

The view in all the judgments above have been in favour of the insured.

11]            Placing reliance on the above judgments as well as the facts &circumstances of the case, this complaint is allowed.  The OPs are directed to jointly & severally pay the following amounts to the complainant:-

i)      Rs.2,74,940/- being the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle.

ii)     Pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

                This order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall jointly & severally be liable to pay Rs.2,74,940/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 13.9.2010 till the date of actual payment besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

05.08.2011

                                                  (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER