Punjab

Sangrur

CC/394/2017

Ranjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Kulvir Singh Sunam

01 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  394

                                                Instituted on:    08.08.2017

                                                Decided on:       01.12.2017

 

Ranjit Singh son of Shri Kashmir Singh, resident of House No.26, Street No.20, Anand Nagar-B, Tripuri, Patiala.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: City Road, NRG Complex, 1^st Floor, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Registered and Head Office: 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014 through its Managing Director.

3.             Neeraj Sharma son of Shashi Kant Sharma, resident of H.No.40, Street No.8, Anand Nagar-B, Patiala (Authorised Agent of United India Insurance Company Ltd.)

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Kulvir Singh, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

For OP NO.3             :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Ranjit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant got insured his Tata Indigo Manza quarter jet Aura ABS car model 2010 bearing registration number CH-01-AC-1379 from OP number 1 through OP number 3 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.5100/- for the period from 14.8.2015 to 13.3.2016 vide policy number 1117023115P105549872.  It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question was stolen on 11.10.2015 near Passy Road, outside Environment Park Patiala and as such FIR number 222 dated 28.10.2015 was registered with PS Civil Lines, Patiala.  Further case of the complainant is that the complainant immediately intimated the OP number 1 regarding the theft of vehicle and supplied the copy of FIR along with all other relevant documents and the complainant also submitted the claim form, but the claim of the complainant was not settled.  Further case of the complainant is that the claim was not released, despite the fact the complainant got served a legal notice dated 15.6.2017 upon the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim of Rs.2,00,000/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint by Ops number 1 and 2, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, that the complaint is false and baseless, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.  It is stated that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insured was bound to give a notice in writing to the company 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 and in case of theft, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police, but in this case the complainant informed the police on 28.10.2015 i.e. after 17 days of the alleged incident of theft and the intimation of theft was given to the company on 29.10.2015.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs under the policy in question.  Further case of the OPs is that the complainant intimated the police with a delay of 17 days from the alleged date of theft of the vehicle in question.  It is stated that the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated by the OPs vide repudiation letter dated 24.8.2016, as such it is stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any claim. It is stated further that the Ops had also appointed investigator Adarsh Associates, who submitted his report dated 16.5.2016 along with statements recorded by him and affidavit given by the complainant. Lastly, it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated by the OPs. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             Record shows that OP number 3 was proceeded against exparte.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP-1&2/1 to Ex.Op1&2/8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question with the OP number 1 for Rs.2,00,000/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy which is on record as Ex.C-3 and it further reveals that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.4474/- as premium.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was stolen on 11.10.2015 near Passy Road, Outside Environment Park Patiala, of which FIR number 222 dated 28.10.2015 was recorded in PS Civil Lines, Patiala, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2.  However, in the present case, the dispute is only about the late submission of the intimation about theft of the vehicle to the OP and late intimation of theft of vehicle to the police.

 

 

7.             Ex.C-3 is the copy of insurance policy, whereas  Ex.C-2 is the copy of FIR lodged with the police of PS Civil Lines, Patiala regarding the theft of the vehicle in question. In the present case, the repudiation of the claim has been done by the OPs on the ground that notice was to be given to the OPs immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage, whereas the complainant has intimated the OPs after a delay of about 17 days of occurrence of theft of the vehicle, whereas the case of the complainant is that the intimation was given to the OPs immediately about the theft of the vehicle in question. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that since the complainant was finding the vehicle here and there, and when he did not found the same, he lodged the FIR with the police.  Now, the question for determination before us is whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount or not.  It is on the record that the complainant tried his best to find out the vehicle here and there and intimated the OPs immediately,  whereas the OP has stated that the complainant intimated it only on 28.10.2015, whereas the FIR was also lodged on 28.10.2015. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had to intimate the police and it is the police only who had to lodge the FIR at their own and in this respect, the complainant is unable to take any action to lodge the FIR.      The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Shriram General Insurance Company Limited versus Rajesh Kumar 2014(2) CLT 390 (HR), wherein it has been held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Sukhram Kashyap versus National Insurance Company Limited, FA/13/272, decided on 11.4.2013 by the Chhattisgarh State Commission, wherein the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal IV (2008) CPJ  1 (SC) has been relied upon, wherein it has been held that the matter of theft of vehicle, breach of conditions of policy was not germane and also held further “the appellant insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer had obtained comprehensive policy to the loss caused to the insurer.  The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of policy, the appellant Insurance company ought to have settled the claim on ‘non standard basis”.   Further we find that the OPs are also deficient in rendering service by not considering the merits of the claim and in repudiating the whole claim of the complainant. To support such a contention further, reliance can also be placed on The Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Ashish Kumar Chauhan, Appeal No.FA/12/110, instituted on 29.2.2012, decided on 19.7.2012 by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission, wherein in similar circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble State Commission ordered the insurance company to pay 75% of the claim amount.   The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited the decision pronounced by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.16701 of 2013 decided on 26.11.2013 in case titled The Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus M/s. Viceroy Car Rental Private Limited and another ,  wherein it has been held that since the claim of the complainant was found to be justified and the vehicle was admittedly insured with the petitioner-company, which was stolen and the incident of theft was immediately reported to the police, as noticed hereinabove. It has never been the case of the insurance company that the claim of the respondent was either bogus or fraudulent. Only objection raised was that the claim was lodged after three months and 9 days and not within the stipulated period of 48 hours, as such, it was held that the delay was not fatal in the circumstances of the case, still further 15% deduction from the total amount of compensation was rightly ordered by Permanent Lok Adalat and that was only because of delayed claim.   No law to the contrary has been cited.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the ends of justice would be met  if the claim of the complainant is settled on non standard basis. Admittedly, in the present case the vehicle in question is insured for Rs.2,00,000/-, as such, we feel that if calculated 75% of the amount, it comes to Rs.1,50,000/-.

 

8.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

 

9.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 8.8.2017 till realisation.  We further order the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and further an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

10.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        December 1, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member