Punjab

Sangrur

CC/327/2018

Sukhchain Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Ravi Jindal

20 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    327

                                                Instituted on:      07.08.2018

                                                Decided on:       20.02.2020

 

Sukhchain Singh son of Kewal Singh, resident of Village Bigarwal, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Above Aggarwal Auto, Dirba, Tehsil Dirba, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager 148035.

2.     United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Divisional Office, Near Railway Station, Sangrur through its Manager 148001.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Ravi Jindal, Adv.

For Opp Parties :       Shri L.K.Singla, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

        Shri V.K.Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

 

1.             Shri Sukhchain Singh, complainant  has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant got insured his truck bearing registration number PB-13-AR-3719  from the OP number 1 vide insurance policy number 1117843115P115073930 for the period from 9.3.2016 to 8.3.2017.  On 12.12.2016 the driver of the complainant namely Jagtar Singh son of Baghel Singh parked the said truck at Shere-e-Punjab Market, Dirba and on the next day in the morning i.e. on 13.12.2016 the vehicle was not there and then the complainant and his driver tried their best to find the vehicle but all in vain.  At that time original RC, pollution certificate and insurance policy were in the tool box of the truck. Thereafter the complainant gave intimation to OP number 1 and to the police of PS Dirba.  Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the OP number 2 appointed surveyor, who visited house of the complainant and took signatures of the complainant on various documents for release of the claim amount. The complainant also handed over the original key of the truck to the surveyor.  The police lodged the FIR number 4 dated 8.1.2017 and thereafter when the truck was not found the police of PS Dirba thoroughly investigated the matter and later on filed untraced report before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class Sunam on 22.9.2017 and accordingly the complainant submitted the untraced report with the OP number 2 for release of the claim amount, but the Ops failed to release the claim amount. As such, 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.7,00,000/-  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, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP under the policy in question which was valid for the period from 9.3.2016 to 8.3.2017. It is stated that the complainant did not intimate the OP about the theft of truck in question immediately in writing or orally and has violated the terms and condition number 1 of the policy. It is stated further that after getting the intimation from the complainant i.e. after 29 days, surveyor namely Ankur Jindal was appointed to investigate, who intimated the violation of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the claim has rightly been repudiated. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             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.

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question with the OP for Rs.7,00,000/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy which is on record as Ex.C-2 and it further reveals that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.29,144/- as premium.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was stolen on the intervening night of 12/13.12.2016, of which FIR number 4 dated 8.1.2017 was recorded in PS Dirba, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4.  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 loss of vehicle to the police.

6.             Ex.C-2 is the copy of insurance policy, whereas  Ex.C-4 is the copy of FIR lodged with the police of PS Dirba 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 OP after a delay of about 29 days, whereas the case of the complainant is that the intimation was given to the OP 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 Op immediately on telephone,  whereas the Op has stated that the complainant intimated it after the period of 29 days of theft of vehicle but no such document is on record that the OP was intimated after 29 days of loss of vehicle. 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 with the police.     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 learned counsel for the complainant has 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 29 days and not within the stipulated period of 48 hours, as such, it was held that the delay was not fatal or could alter the circumstances of the case. It is worth mentioning here that the untraced report was also accepted by the Court of JMIC/Sunam on 12.12.2015 and the certified copy of the order was issued to the complainant on 22.09.2017, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5. In the circumstances of the case, we hold that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops in not settling the rightful claim of the complainant.

7.             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.

8.             In the sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 7.8.2018 till realisation.  We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation.

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

                        Pronounced.

                February 20, 2020.

 

 

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)          (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

                 Member                             President