BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.213/14.

Date of instt.: 16.10.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 10.12.2015.

Balvinder Singh son of Sh. Manvir Singh r/o Village Julani Khera, District Kaithal, presently residing in a rented house situated at Gali No.1 of Pritam Singh, Friends Colony, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Karnal Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Rohit Saharan, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is the registered owner of Bike Bullet Black Colour, Model Classik 350, bearing registration No.HR-08Q/7575, engine No.U3S5CODH304095 and chassis No.ME3U3S5CODH

304095 and he got insured his motor-cycle with the Op vide policy No.1107053113P103563004.  It is alleged that on 13.12.2013 at about 06.00 p.m. after locking the house, the complainant went out of his house and on 14.12.2013, when the complainant came back to his house at about 08.30 a.m., then he saw that the above-said bike of complainant along with other house hold articles were theft by some unknown person.  It is further alleged that the complainant got lodged an FIR bearing No.286 dt. 14.12.2013 with P.S. Civil Line, Kaithal.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 19.08.2014.  The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op, as no immediate information regarding alleged theft was given to answering Op, which is prime condition under the policy.  The alleged theft took place on 13.12.2013 as per vision of complaint but the intimation to the insurance company was given on 03.01.2014 for the first time after a long delay of 21 days which was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.  Thus, the answering Op has been deliberately deprived off an opportunity to investigate the matter and hence, the Op-insurance company is not liable for payment of any compensation.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.PA to Mark-A and closed evidence on 30.09.2015.  On the other hand, the Op tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed evidence on 28.10.2015.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.  

5.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that the complainant got insured his motor-cycle Bullet Black Colour, Model Classik 350, bearing registration No.HR-08Q/7575 with the Op vide policy No.1107053113P103563004.  On 14.12.2013 at about 08.30 a.m., the above-said motor-cycle of complainant along with other house hold articles were theft from his house by some unknown person.  The complainant got lodged an FIR bearing No.286 dt. 14.12.2013 with P.S. Civil Line, Kaithal.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 19.08.2014 on the ground that the alleged theft took place on 13/14.12.2013 but the intimation to the Op-Insurance company was given on 03.01.2014 after a long delay of 21 days.  As per terms and condition No.1 of insurance policy, “Notice shall be given in writing to insurance company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damages”.  So, the complainant violated the terms and condition of the insurance policy.  Despite of violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, we are of the considered view that the complainant should not be denied his claim in it’s entirety.  It is, therefore, quite just and fair that the claim is in respect of loss of motor-cycle must be settled on the basis of the guidelines of non-standard settlement.  In this regard, reliance can be made to authority titled as Shakeel Ahmed Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & others, reported in 2015(2) CLT page 255 (NC), wherein it has been held that Non-standard basis-Goods vehicle-Claim repudiated on the ground that the vehicle authorized to carry only goods, carrying passengers at the time of accident-Held-Once it is found that the vehicle was being used predominantly for carrying passengers despite its being authorized to carry only goods-It would be a clear-cut breach of the terms and conditions-Insurance company would be entitled to repudiate the claim-Irrespective of whether the carrying of the passengers by itself leads to the accident or not-Had it been used primarily for carrying goods and the carrying of the passengers been only incidental-There would have been no justification for altogether rejection of the claim-Insurance Company would have been obliged to settle the claim on non-standard basis.  The said authority is fully applicable to the present case.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op has repudiated the claim of complainant in toto wrongly which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Op.

6.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to settle the claim of complainant on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the insured value (Rs.1,10,960) i.e. Rs.83,220/-.  No order as to costs.  Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order to the parties, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of this order till its realization.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.10.12.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.