Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 186.

                                                          Instituted on     : 01.04.2016.

                                                          Decided on       : 07.07.2017.

Surjeet son of Dharam Bir resident of village and post office Chinnoli Distt. Sonipat.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Office at 323/21 Delhi Road,  Rohtak through its Branch Manager.

                                                     ……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.S.S.Malik, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Gulshan Chawla, 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 vehicle no.HR-10Q-3247 which was duly insured with the opposite party for the period w.e.f. 17.09.2014 to 16.09.2015. It is averred that HPA of the said vehicle has been cleared and insured value of the said vehicle is Rs.390000/-. It is averred that aforesaid vehicle of complainant was got stolen in the intervening night of 08.03.2015 & 09.03.2015 nearby the house of aunt of complainant at Sonipat from the driver Harjeet. It is averred that intimation about the theft of said vehicle was given to the police and FIR No.77 dated 09.03.2015 was lodged. The complainant and police made efforts to trace out the said vehicle and complainant immediately within time intimated the opposite party’s official in writing on 11.03.2015 and on 16.03.2015 as well as verbally about the theft of said vehicle, official of opposite party obtained signature of complainant and had completed the required formalities. It is averred that on 30.03.2015 again the opposite party asked the complainant to submit the documents as the earlier documents were misplaced. But despite completing all the formalities, submitting the documents and repeated requests of the complainant, claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 11.03.2016 on the ground of delayed intimation. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant has sought the insured sum of Rs.390000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses from the opposite party.

2.                          On notice opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the contents regarding the vehicle in question being insured from answering opposite party for the period 17.09.2014 to 16.09.2015 subject to terms and condition is correct. It is averred that the contents regarding theft of vehicle in the intervening night of 08.03.2015/09.03.2015 is correct as per the documents supplied by the complainant. It is denied that the complainant immediately intimated answering opposite party about the alleged theft of the vehicle on 11.03.2015, 16.03.2015 or 23.03.2015. It is averred that initially the intimation regarding the alleged theft was made to answering opposite party on 30.03.2015 whereas the alleged theft had take place on 08/09.03.2015. Hence there is unexplained delay of 22 days in intimating the answering opposite party. It is averred that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the opposite party and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW3/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and has closed the 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 it is not disputed that as per certificate of insurance Ex.C9, vehicle No.HR-10-Q-3247 of the complainant was insured with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.390000/-. It is also not disputed that as per copy of FIR Ex.C1, the alleged vehicle was stolen in the night of 9.03.2015 and the FIR was lodged the same day. After the theft complainant filed the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party  vide its letter Ex.R6 has repudiated the claim on the ground that the intimation was given to the opposite party office on 30.03.2015 where the date of theft is 08.03.2015. There is a delay of 22 days in giving intimation to the company. On the other hand contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the intimation was given to the opposite party on 11.03.2015 and on the request of opposite party that the claim papers were lost by the opposite party, complainant again submitted the claim form on 30.03.2015.

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of complainant has been repudiated on the ground that there was delay of 22 days in giving intimation to the opposite party no.1. In this regard it is observed that the theft had taken place on 09.03.2015 and the intimation to the police was given on the same day and FIR was lodged on the same day. In this regard we have placed reliance 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”, 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”. 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 party is illegal and unjustified and the complainant is entitled for the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.390000/-.   

8.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the opposite party shall pay the insured sum of Rs.390000/-(Rupees three lac ninety thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 01.04.2016 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc. to the opposite party failing which the opposite party  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.      File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

07.07.2017

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.

                                                                        ………………………….

                                                          Ved Pal, Member.