Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/456/2014

Sanjay Kumar S/o Banwari Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sanjay Dhiman

12 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                         Complaint No. 456  of  2014.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 07.11.2014.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 12.06.2017.

Sanjay Kumar son of Sh. Banwari Lal resident of Veena Nagar, Near Govt. School, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited Jagadhri Road, Near Telephone Exchange, Yamuna Nagar-135001 through its Branch Manager.  

 

                                                                                                                      … Respondent.

                     

BEFORE         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.  

 

Present: Sh. Sanjay Dhiman , Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Kuldeep Singh for Sh. Parmod Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sanjay Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is registered owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02AC-8199 which was insured with the OP Insurance Company vide insurance policy bearing No. 1101013113P102968585 for a sum of Rs. 47,700/- valid from 01.08.2013 to 31.07.2012. On 27.02.2014, the complainant cautiously had parked his aforesaid motorcycle outside his house at about 7.00 P.M. and at about 8.00 P.M. when the complainant came out his house he found that his motorcycle was not there and the same was stolen by some unknown person. The complainant made search but could not find the motorcycle in question then he intimated the concerned police post in this regard. The complainant also got lodged an FIR bearing No. 83 dated 08.03.2014 under section 379 IPC  at police station Farakpur but so far, the police has also failed to trace out the stolen motorcycle of the complainant. After theft of the aforesaid motorcycle of the complainant, the complainant immediately lodged his claim under the insurance policy with the OP and has submitted entire demanded documents with the OP Insurance Company but the OP Insurance Company did not accept the claim of the complainant and has illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the complainant. Lastly, prayed for directing the OP Insurance Company to accept the claim of the complainant and to grant him the claim as provided under the Insurance Policy and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

 3.                    Upon notice, OP Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as a complicated question of law and fact is involved in this case, which needs elaborate evidence and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as such complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and on merit it has been submitted that as per the pleadings of the complainant he has not taken due care and caution in parking the said motorcycle outside the house and either he should have parked the motorcycle in parking area or inside the house and he left the said motorcycle unattended in the public place and as such the claim is not payable. It has been further submitted that the alleged theft took place on 27.02.2014 whereas FIR stands lodged on 08.03.2014 after about 9 days of the alleged loss and the complainant has not given any intimation to the insurance company within 48 hours of the alleged theft and as such right of investigation by the Insurance Company stands hampered with and it is a clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the claim is not payable. The complainant has failed to submit document to the OP Insurance Company, however, the claim has rightly been repudiated since the claim is in the utter violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the complaint is not maintainable. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of Insurance policy as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of FIR as Annexure C-2, Photo copy claim repudiation letter dated 13.05.2014 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of RC as Annexure C-4 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ajay Sareen, Assistant Manager, UIIC as Annexure RW/A, Affidavit of Anil Kumar Sharma, Investigator as Annexure RW/B and documents such as photo copy of claim intimation letter as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Insurance policy as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of FIR as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of motor claim form as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of investigation report of Anil Kumar Sharma Investigator as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of statement of Sanjay Kumar as Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP. 

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely & carefully. 

7.                     It is admitted fact that the complainant is registered owner of  motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02AC-8199 and motorcycle in question was insured with the OP insurance company vide insurance policy bearing No. 1101013113P102968585 for a sum of Rs. 47,700/- valid from 01.08.2013 to 31.07.2012. It is also not disputed that the motorcycle in question was stolen on 27.02.2014 which is evident from FIR No. 83 dated 08.03.2014(Annexure-C-2/R-3) registered in police station Farakpur and a claim was lodged with the OP Insurance Company by the complainant. 

8.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the genuine claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by the OP Insurance Company whereas the case of the complainant is duly proved from the copy of FIR bearing No. 83 dated 08.03.2014 (Annexure C-2) and referred the case law titled as Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another Versus Sandeep Sharma, 2016(1) CPJ Page 13A (CN)(Har) wherein it has been held that “it is an admitted fact that motorcycle was stolen- Repudiation of genuine claim on ground of delay in giving intimation to Insurance Company and lodging FIR was not justified- As per circular issued by IRDA insurer cannot take shelter under condition and repudiate genuine claim”. And further referred the case law titled as The Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Yadram, 2014(2) CLT page 386 and another case law titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Ruben Kumar Saha & Another 2016(1) CPJ page 19A (CN) Jhar) wherein it has been held that “Insurance Company could not show that there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance- Even the surveyor report was not filed”.

9.                       Whereas on the other hand, learned counsel for the OP argued at length that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated as the complainant has lodged the FIR after a delay of 09 days i.e. on 08.03.2014 and intimated the OP Insurance Company on 18.03.2014 i.e. after a delay of 19 days from the date of theft as the alleged occurrence took place on 27.02.2014 and referred the case law titled as Jaina Consruction Company Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another, 2016(4) CLT page 87, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Maya 2008(3) CLT page 153 and Gurlal Singh Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others 2016(II) CPJ page 448 (NC). 

10.                   After hearing both the parties we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Company as in the present complaint, motorcycle in question was stolen on 27.02.2014 whereas FIR was lodged on 08.03.2014 i.e. after a period of 9 days and the intimation to the OP insurance company was also given on 18.03.2014 i.e. after 19 days which is evident from the letter dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure R-1) written by the complainant. Further, no cogent evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove that he intimated the police on the same day. It is settled law that normally, document does not lie but man may do. Even if we presume this, even then it is not enough to make the insurance company liable to pay the claim which was lodged with it after a gap of near about 19 days. The authorities (supra) tendered by the complainant is not disputed but not helpful in the present case whereas the authorities (supra) tendered by the OP Insurance Company are fully applicable in the present case.

11                    In view of the above discussion, this Forum is of considered view that there is violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy (Annex. R-2/C-1) and opposite parties have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 13.05.2014(Annexure C-3). As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

12.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 12.06.2017

 

 

                                                                              ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

                                                                               D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                               AT JAGADHRI

 

 

                  (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)          (S.C.SHARMA)

                   MEMBER                                           MEMBER