Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 53.
Instituted on : 24.01.2012.
Decided on : 25.05.2015.
Ravinder Singh son of Sh. Natha Singh, R/o village Kheri Sampla Tehsil Sampla District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Near Ravinder Chikara Chowk, Deswal Road Corner, Jhajjar through its Divisional Manager.
- United Insurance Company Ltd., Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Parteek Kinha, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.O.P.Punia, 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 was owner of a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-12H-0738 which was fully insured with the opposite party no.1. It is averred that the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen and opposite party no.1 was immediately informed. FIR No.18 dated 25.01.2010 was registered u/s 379 IPC and information was also given to the opposite party on 25.01.2010 itself. It is averred that complainant filed the claim with the opposite party and completed all the formalities but the opposite party vide its letter dated 09.12.2011 had repudiated the claim on the false ground. It is averred the motorcycle was parked on correct place and in front of the company. It is averred that the intimation to the company was given immediately and there was no delay. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim of Rs.80000/- i.e. Rs.30000/- as claim and Rs.50000/- for causing mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses alongwith interest to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that there is delay in giving intimation to the opposite party about the alleged theft. The first letter of intimation was given on 28.02.2010 whereas the alleged theft is dated 25.02.2010. Therefore the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the company because the complainant has violated the condition no.1 of the insurance policy. It is averred that the complainant has also violated the clause no.3 of the insurance policy which states that “as the motorcycle was parked in plot no.27 Phase-1 Police station, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon unattended”. On merits it is submitted that the claim was rightly and legally repudiated as the complainant has violated the clause of insurance policy. 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. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.C1, documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R2 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 25.01.2010 and the FIR Ex.C3 was lodged on the same day i.e. 25.01.2010. After the theft complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties but the opposite parties vide their letter Ex.C2 had repudiated the claim on the ground that as per FIR motorcycle was parked in the outside of Bee Gee Handicrafts, plot no.27, Phase-I, Udhyog Vihar, Gurgaon on 25.1.2010 unattended and intimation to the company has been conveyed on 3.2.2010 about a period of 9 days of the alleged theft and thus has violated the terms and conditions no.1 & 3 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 violation of terms and conditions of the policy i.e. clause no.1 of giving late intimation to the company and clause no.3 of parking the vehicle unattended”. In this regard it is observed that as per copy of FIR the complainant had gone to the company and had parked the motorcycle in front of the company. It is not mentioned in the FIR that the complainant had not locked his vehicle. Hence it cannot be said that the vehicle was parked unattended. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 1(2010) CPJ 272(NC) titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Subash Kumar whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Contention, vehicle parked unattended in violation of policy, not acceptable-Person taking insurance not expected to keep security man to safeguard the vehicle”, 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 delayed intimation of 9 days to the company it is observed that FIR was lodged on the same day of theft. The main stress for giving immediate information to the company or to the police is only with regard to conducting investigation of the case to know as to whether the theft of the vehicle actually took place or not and to ensure conviction to the offender. In the case in hand, no prejudice has been caused to the insurance company as the police was immediately informed about the theft of the vehicle. The police being the good investigating agency must have conducted investigation very well more seriously being its duty and thus it cannot be said that the insurance company has been deprived of its right of getting investigation. The opposite party also could have verified it from the police. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law 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”. We have also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(2)CLT 390 titled Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar whereby 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” 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 is illegal and the opposite parties are liable to pay the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle and as per policy document Ex.C5 the IDV is Rs.30000/-.
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.30000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 24.12.2012 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 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.
