Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 633.
Instituted on : 22.11.2011.
Decided on : 25.05.2015.
Pardeep Kumar s/o Sh. Rajpal Singh R/o VPO Jasrana Tehsil Gohana Distt. Sonepat At present R/o VPO Ujjwa New Delhi-110073.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- United India Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office 24, Whites, Channai 600014, Through its Managing Director.
- United Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Rohtak Opposite D.Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak, through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Jimmi Rathi, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is owner of a motor bike bearing registration No.DL-9SL-5411 make Hero Honda “Splender plus”. It is averred that the above said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties vide cover note dated 12.05.2009 and the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.28000/-. It is averred that on 1.1.2010 complainant went to the Village Madhak Dham Kaloi and his motorcycle was stolen from there and a complaint to this effect was filed on 1.1.2010 and FIR was registered on dated 3.1.2010. It is averred that the opposite parties were intimated on 3.1.2010 but the complainant was asked to approach the opposite parties after 10 days and after 10 days complainant again intimated the opposite parties but they avoided the claim of the complainant on one pretext or the other. The vehicle was not traced till 7.9.2011 and complainant completed all the formalities to get the genuine claim but the same was repudiated by the opposite parties vide letter dated 30.09.2011 on the ground that there was a delay of 11 days in intimating the company which is violation of condition no.1 of the policy. It is averred that opposite parties be directed to pay the claim of Rs.28000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the alleged theft/loss took place on 1.1.2010 and the complainant informed the police on 3.1.2010 after two days of theft and FIR was also lodged on 3.1.2010 and the intimation to the Insurance company was given on 10.10.2010 i.e. after 11 days of the occurrence which is violation of condition no.1 of the policy and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation in this case. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the Complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 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. It is also not disputed that the theft of vehicle had taken place on 01.01.2010 and the FIR Ex.C1 was lodged on 03.01.2010. After the theft complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties but the opposite parties vide their letter Ex.C6 had repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was stolen on 01.01.2010 and the complainant intimated the company on 12.01.2010 i.e. after 11 days which is violation of condition no.1 of the policy.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has only been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground of delayed intimation of 2 days to the police and 11 days to the company. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant intimated the police on the same day but the FIR was lodged on 03.01.2010 and that the delay if any was not intentional and has placed reliance upon the law cited in 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(3)CLT447 titled as Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manoj whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Repudiation- On the ground that there was delay of eleven days in lodging the F.I.R. and delay of 33 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company-Whether violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy?-Held-No-FIR lodged and intimation was also given to the Insurance Company-Thus, it is amply proved that the vehicle was stolen and could not be traced-it was a genuine claim of the complainant-Appeal dismissed”, as per 2014(2)CLT 386 titled Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram whereby Hon’ble State Commission has held that: “In case of theft of vehicle, breach of policy condition is not germane-The delay of 15 days is not significant in such a case.”, and 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”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the repudiation of claim by the opposite parties on the ground of delayed intimation to the police as well as to the insurance company is not genuine and the opposite parties are liable to pay the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle and as per policy document Ex.C3 the IDV is Rs.28000/-.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite parties shall pay the insured declared value of vehicle i.e. Rs.28000/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.11.2011 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 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 parties failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount 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:
25.05.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
