DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 148 of 28.4.2017

                                      Decided on:           6.4.2018

Tilak Raj aged about 28 years son of Sh.Suresh Kumar, resident of House No.9, Arjun Nagar, Old Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch office: Leela Bhawan Market, Bhupindra Nagar Road, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

2.       United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office: Sai Market, Lower Mall, Patiala through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member 

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.Kulwant Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.B.S.Sodhi,Advocate, counsel for opposite parties. 

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh.Tilak Raj, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.)                

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle make Tractor Sonalika 60 HP Model Di 2015, bearing registration No.PB-11-BR-3490, having engine No.470276F8 and chassis No.47338353.The complainant got the aforesaid vehicle insured from the OPs vide policy No.1110063115P114430289  with the declared value of Rs.4,75,000/- for the period from 25.2.2016 to 24.2.2017.On 11.9.2016, when the vehicle in question was driven by the father of the complainant, in order to take the delivery of trolley from village Dargapur, it suddenly stopped due to some mechanical snag/fault in the engine of the same. The father of the complainant tried his best to start the tractor but all in vain and ultimately left the vehicle there and went to bring the mechanic for getting the same repaired. However, when father of the complainant came back with the mechanic, the vehicle was not at the place where he left the same. He enquired from the nearby people regarding the missing of tractor but he got no information. He went to Police Station, Amloh.The police officials of P.S.Amloh visited the spot and told that the place from where tractor was lost did not fall within the jurisdiction of their police station and  is with Police Station Bhadson.The officials of P.S.Amloh send wireless message .Thereafter, father of the complainant went to P.S.Bhadson. The officials of P.S.Bhadson, visited the spot from where the tractor of the complainant was stolen.After enquiring the matter, the officials of P.S.Bhadson registered  FIR No.0097 dated 29.9.2016 under Section 379 of IPC. In this regard, intimation to OP no.1 was also given on 3.10.2016, as there were public holidays on 1.10.2016 and 2.10.2016. Branch Manager of Op no.1 asked the complainant to come after 4-5 days and time and again did not do the needful .Ultimately on 20.10.2016, intimation was given to the New Branch Manager of OP no.1. Thereafter the complainant received a letter dated 21.11.2016 from OP no.1 stating therein that there was delay of 1 months and 10 days in intimating OP no.1 whereas , as per condition No.1 of the policy, notice was to be given in writing immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage or theft or criminal act. Vide this letter, the complainant was also directed for explaining the reason of delay in giving the intimation to OP no.1. It is stated that on receipt of the said letter on 8.1.2017, the complainant sent detailed reply alongwith documentary proof. Thereafter, he approached and requested the OP No.1 for payment of the claim amount but to no effect. Ultimately vide letter dated 6.3.2017 the OP no.1 repudiated the claim on the ground of delay in lodging the claim. There is thus, deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs to release the claim amount of Rs.4,75,000/-alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of occurrence till realization; to pay  Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment alongwith Rs.25000/-as costs of litigation. Any other relief which this Forum may deem fit may also be granted.

3.       On being put to notice, the OPs appeared through counsel and filed their written version. It is stated that there was delay in lodging police report as according to the complainant incident  occurred on 11.9.2016 and FIR was lodged on 29.9.2016 and also intimation to OPs was given on 20.10.2016.It is admitted that an explanation was sought from the complainant regarding delay of 40 days giving the intimation from the date of incident. The reply submitted by the complainant to this effect was not satisfactory. The competent authority taking into account all documents on claim file, repudiated the claim vide letter dated 6.3.2017.There was no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.       On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12 and closed evidence of the complainant.

          The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Smt.Seema Goyal, Sr.Branch Manager, U.I.I.C. alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed evidence of the OPs.

5.       We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6.       Admittedly the vehicle in question was duly insured with the OPs for the period from 25.2.2016 to 24.2.2017, vide policy document Ex.C2. The said vehicle was stolen on 11.9.2016,during the subsistence of the policy. The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs which was repudiated by them  vide letter dated 6.3.2017,Ex.C7 on the ground that there was delay of 18 days in lodging the FIR with the police station  and delay of one month and 10 days in informing the OPs from the date of occurrence of the incident.

7.        The ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that immediately after the theft of the vehicle in question, the father of the complainant, went to the police station, Amloh(FGS) to lodge the complaint. The Police official of the said police station visited the spot and told him that the place from where the vehicle was stolen does fall within the jurisdiction of police station, Bhadson, Patiala. The said police official sent a wireless message to this effect to P.S.Bhadson, Patiala, as is evident from Ex.C3 and on 29.9.2016 , the complainant also lodged the FIR,Ex.C4 with the police station, Bhadson, Patiala. As such there is no delay in giving information to the police authorities about the theft of the vehicle in question. The ld. counsel for the complainant further contended that after lodging the FIR dated 29.9.2016, the complainant went to the office of the OPs to inform them with regard to the theft of his vehicle but the then Manager refused to give him the intimation form and told him to come after 4-5 days. Thereafter, he again went to the office of the OPs, the said branch Manager told him that she has been transferred from the said office and the New Manager would deal with the case and asked him to come again to meet the new manager. Ultimately the complainant was  able to meet the new manager on 20.10.2016.The delay in informing to the police as well as to the OPs has been well explained in the letter dated  14.1.2017,Ex.C6, written by the father of the complainant to the Branch Manager, United India Insurance co.Ltd. Patiala. The delay in giving intimation  cannot be attributed on the part of the complainant, as such the OPs were wrong in repudiated the claim of the complainant. He further submitted that even if there is delay in intimating the insurance company, the OPs cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant on this ground. While saying so he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another IV(2017) CPJ 10 (SC).

8.       On perusal of the copy of wireless message Ex.C3 dated 11.9.2016, it is evident that the same has not been stamped   by the concerned police authority. As such no reliance can be placed on the said document to arrive at a conclusion that in fact the father of the complainant approached the police station P.S.Amloh(FGS) on 11.9.2016, to lodge the complaint with regard to the theft of the vehicle in question. It may be stated here that once the complainant had come to know about this fact that  the place from where his vehicle was stolen,  falls  within the jurisdiction of P.S.Bhadon, Patiala then he could have lodged the FIR with the P.S.Bhadson immediately thereafter instead of lodging the FIR on 29.9.2016.  From the letter dated 14.1.2017,Ex.C6, it is evident that intimation regarding theft of the vehicle in question was given to the insurance company by the complainant on 20.10.2016 and  the  reason given   for delay in intimating the OPs is vague. If for the argument sake, we believe that  the then Manager of the insurance company refused to give the intimation form to the complainant then he could have given the information with regard to the theft of the vehicle in question, in writing may be on a plain paper against  receipt. As per condition No.1 of  policy document, Ex.OP6,  which reads as under:

Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have the knowledge ……………………..”

 the complainant was duty bound to inform the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. Whereas from the documents placed on record, it is born out that there is  delay of 40 days in informing the insurance company and 18 days delay in lodging the complaint with the police authorities from the date of occurrence of the incidence. In the case of Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another IV(2017) CPJ 10 (SC), on which the ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance , the delay was only of 8 days  and a cogent reason was given to explain the said delay. However, in the present case, there is inordinate delay of 40 days in informing the insurance company and 18 days delay in lodging the complaint with the police authorities from the date of occurrence of the incidence and the reason given for the said delay is not well founded.  Since the facts of the present case are different from the facts mentioned in the case Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another IV(2017) CPJ 10 (SC), (supra) therefore, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the said case is not applicable to the present case. It may be stated here that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as  Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. Vs. Parveen Chander Chadha, Civil appeal No.6739 of 2010,  has categorically  held that  in terms of the policy,  issued by the insurance company, the insured was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incidence. Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get an enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. Similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble Suprme Court, in the case of Mohammadali Liyakatali Pathan Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. RP No.3183 of 2011 decided on 12.7.2012.

9.                In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the cases Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. Vs. Parveen Chander Chadha and Mohammadali Liyakatali Pathan Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), we hereby dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant . Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:6.4.2018                                                NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER