Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 465.
Instituted on : 27.08.2012.
Decided on : 11.03.2015.
Anirudh Singh son of Shri Ganga Sahai Resident of village Bhaiyapur, Rothak now at House No.1, Sector-4, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Jawahar Market, Opposite Model Town, 323/21, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.H.C.Sikri, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Behl, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of Car bearing registration no.HR-12H-6704 which was duly insured with the opposite party for the amount of Rs.165450/-. It is averred that on 26.06.2011 the complainant’s son had gone to meet his cousin to Karnal and parked his vehicle outside the house of his cousin and locked the same at 11.00P.M and in the morning at 05.00 AM the vehicle was not there and the same was stolen. An FIR No.487 dated 28.6.2011 was lodged with P.S. Civil Lines, Karnal and opposite party was informed accordingly. Complainant executed all the relevant documents and completed all the formalities as required by the opposite party but the opposite party sent a letter dated 6.3.2012 submitting therein that the complainant has parked the vehicle unattended and left the key in the said car and falsely averred that the complainant has violated the terms & conditions of the policy and as such the opposite party has illegally held that the company is absolved from the liabilities and claim has been held as no claim. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.165450/- the sum assured of the vehicle alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant after due application of mind and going through the record. It is averred that the vehicle was parked by the son of complainant in front of the house of his cousin at Karnal in the night without any supervision and also left key in the said car. It is averred that the car was stolen on 26/27.06.2011 and the intimation was given to the company on 07.07.2011 (after 10 days ) and FIR was lodged on 28.06.2011. Thus there is late intimation to the company and delay in lodging the FIR and the same is a violation of terms & conditions of the policy. Thus the opposite party has rightly close the claim file as no claim after legal process. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. It is prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed. As per cover note Ex.P1 the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party for the period from 26.06.2011 to 25.06.2012 and the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.165450/-. As per copy of FIR Ex.P9, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen in the intervening night of 26/27.06.2011 and the FIR was lodged on 28.06.2011. Complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.P12/Ex.R1 has repudiated the claim on the ground that the son of the complainant had parked the car in front of the house of his cousin in the night un-attended without any supervision and also left key in the said car as disclosed by the investigator report. It is further mentioned in the letter that there is a delay in lodging the FIR and intimation to the company.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that at the time of theft the vehicle was lying unattended and key was left inside the vehicle. To prove its contention the opposite party has placed on record copy of investigation report Ex.R3 as per which one key was left in the car at the time of theft. The investigator has also submitted his affidavit Ex.RW1/B whereby it is mentioned that “As told by the insured that his son who parked their car in front of house of his cousin brother in Sector-7, Karnal in night on 26.06.2011 and same was stolen. Key was left in the car at the time of theft”. The report of investigator is based upon the statement of insured Ex.R2 but the same is merely a photocopy and cannot be relied upon because as per the affidavit Ex.PW1/A filed by the complainant/insured, the car was locked at the time of theft. As per FIR Ex.P9 also, the car was locked at the time of theft. Hence it cannot be said that the son of complainant had left the vehicle unlocked/unattended. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in First Appeal no.1015 of 2014 decided on 18.11.2014 titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Devinder whereby Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has held that: “The complainant had submitted both the original ignition keys which were provided by the manufacturer. Meaning thereby, both the ignition keys were with the complainant. Therefore it cannot be said that the complainant had left the motorcycle unlocked. Appeal dismissed”, as per law cited in II(2011)CPJ 252 titled Reliance General Insurance Co. Vs. Amit, Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Vehicle left unattended by its driver and cleaner, hence deficiency in service-Not accepted-Breach of policy condition not germane in cases of theft of vehicle”. Regarding the delay in lodging the FIR it is observed that the theft had taken place on 26/27.06.2011 and the FIR was lodged on 28.06.2011. Hence there is no delay in lodging the FIR and regarding the delayed intimation to the company which was given after 9 days, reliance has been placed upon the law cited in cited in III(2008) CPJ 459 titled Ridhi Gupta vs. NIC whereby Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Insurance-Theft-Information to police in any form, including DD report, sufficient requirement-Once report lodged with police in any form, Insurance Company barred from appointing investigator to investigate, whether theft took place or not”, as per 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Delay of 12 days in intimation to insurance company-There may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim, which is otherwise proved to be genuine”, as per 2014(2)CLT 386 titled Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram Hon’ble State Commission has also held that “In case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane.”, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2011-4PLR titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma has held that : “Merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform the petitioner-company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim and it is further held that Insurance companies are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium-Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other”. Therefore in view of the aforesaid law which are applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and unjustified and the complainant is entitled for the claim as per IDV of the vehicle. On the other hand law cited by ld. Counsel for the opposite party i.e. 2014(4)CLT 261 titled Arjun Lal Jat Vs. M/s HDFC Irgo General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party shall pay the amount of Rs.165450/-(Rupees one lac sixty five thousand four hundred fifty only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.27.08.2012 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. transfer of R.C. & Subrogation letter etc. to the opposite party failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.03.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
