| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 487 of 14.12.2016 Decided on: 3.8.2018 Jaswant Singh aged about 40 years S/o Jeet Singh, R/o H.No.204,New Yadvindra Colony, Sirhind Road, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus United India Insurance Company Unitetd, Ankur Bhawan, Opposite Polo Ground, Lower Mall, Patiala through its Divisional Manager. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Avneet Singh Billing,Adv.counsel for complainant. Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Adv. counsel for opposite party. ORDER SH. M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT This is the complaint filed by Sh.Jaswant Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against United India Insurance Co. and another(hereinafter referred to as the OPs). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of vehicle Tata 709, which has been registered with the competent transport authority at Patiala vide registration No.PB11AY 9076.The vehicle waspurchased by raising loan from Financer Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Complainant has already paid complete amount of loan. Certificate in this regard has been issued by the Finance Company. The complainant got the vehicle insured comprehensively with OP for a period commencing from 28.2.2015 to 27.2.2016. The declared value of the vehicle as per the policy is Rs.4,28,000/-.The vehicle was being used by the complainant for carriage of Hens. Joginder Pal Singh s/o Gopal Singh of Preet Nagar, Patiala was employed as driver at the relevant time. As per complainant, on 10.8.2015, after finishing his work, Joginder Pal Singh as per practice parked the vehicle in New Grain Market, Patiala at about 9PM and locked the same. He delivered the keys at the house of the complainant. On 11.8.2015, at about 6AM, complainant went at the parking place in order to clean the vehicle. He found that the vehicle was not there. He searched for the vehicle at all places in the grain market with his driver but to no effect.He made telephonic call to inform the police about the theft of the vehicle at about 9.25AM through his mobile No.90142-31405 and informed the police. The official attending the telephone assured the complainant that the matter would be reported to Police Station Anaj Mandi, Patiala and shortly the police will visit him for lodging the report and for the search of the vehicle. The police called the complainant on 12.9.2015 and without lodging the report, assured the complainant that the vehicle would be traced, there was no need to lodge the FIR. However, whenthe vehicle was not traced till 15.9.2015, the police, on the repeated requests of the complainant, registered the FIR No.0298 dated 15.9.2015 at Police Station Anaj Mandi, Patiala. The vehicle was not traced by the police. Finally the police lodged the untaced report with Ilqua Magistrate.
It is further pleaded that complainant initially remained busy with the police. Finally when the vehicle was not traced, he was advised by the tempo union to lodge the claimfor loss of the vehicle with the OP. Accordingly the claim was lodged with the OP on 3.10.2015.OP deputed surveyorand investigator to access the case and genuineness of the claim. The complainant associated with the surveyor and investigator. They obtained signatures of the complainant on various documents. Complainant kept on pursuing the claim with the OPs and OPs kept on assuring the complainant for payment of the claim but after gap of about one year the OPsintimated that his claim stand repudiated. It is alleged that the repudiation of the claim is totally illegal, which amounts to denial of his rights as per policy. The complainant has suffered due to illegal and unauthorized act of denial of the claim. He has also suffered from mental tension etc. The complainant has claimed sum of Rs.4,80,000/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of loss till payment, Rs.one lac, damages for mental harassment etc. Hence this complaint. 2.Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the reply. In reply, the OP raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the claim of the complainant has already been declared as no claim as per condition no.1 as the insured lodged the FIR No.296 dated 16.9.2015 after a gap of 36 days. He intimated the loss to the insurance company on 6.10.2015 i.e. after gap of 54 days. It amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy which require that the insurer is to be informed immediately in writing after the loss. The complainant has been informed accordingly vide letter dated 5.10.2016; that the complainant does not qualify ingredients of valid complaint as envisaged in Section 2(1)( c) ofC.P.Act. There is no single allegation of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. The OP float the Insurance Scheme for the public in general after prior approval of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) and all the terms and conditions of the respective insurance policies are set by the IRDA under the IRDA Act 1999 and Insurance Act,1938; that complicated questions of the law and facts are involved for which civil court is competent to try the dispute. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as he has purchased the truck for commercial purposes after havingraised loan from the bank. It is denied that the complainant has paid entire amount of loan to the bank. It is admitted that the OP had issued Goods Carrying Commercial Package Policy for truck No.PB11AY-9076, in favour of the complainant but the liability is denied. It is denied that the truck was being used for carrying of hens or Joginder Pal Singh was working as driver. It is denied that on 10.8.2015, driver of the complainant parked the truck in New Grain Market, at 9:00PM after locking the same. It is pleaded that the complainant left the vehicle in the open unguarded place which amounted to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The vehicle is to be parked in proper parking having the guard to look after. It is denied that the complainant informed the police on telephone at 9.25AM on 11.8.2015. It is however, admitted that on receipt of intimation of loss on 6.10.2015, OP had deputed Sh.Randhir Singh, Investigator, Retd. D.S.P. to investigate the case. He submitted his report on 20.11.2015.Complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not informing the OP immediately after loss. OP has lost its valuable right to trace the vehicle if the informationwas given immediately after the loss on 10.8.2015. It is reiterated that the claim has been rightly declared as “no claim” as per terms and conditions of the policy.All the other allegations of the complainant are also denied.In the end, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence. In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of registration certificate Ex.C1, copy of NOC, issued by Cholamandlam regarding cancelling loan endorsement Ex.C2, copy ofinsurance policy, Ex.C3, copy of driving licence of Joginder Pal Singh, Ex.C4, copy of letter issued by Incharge, Control Room, Ex.C5, copy of FIR, Ex.C6, copy of report, Ex.C7, copy ofrepudiation letter dated 5/10/2016,Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. - The OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Kanta Devi, Ex.OPA, affidavit of Randhir Singh, Investigator, Ex.OPB, copy of repudiation letter, Ex.OP1, copy of letter, Ex.OP2, copy of report of Investigator, Ex.OP3, copy of motor claim intimation slip, Ex.OP4, copy of letter dated 3.2.2016, Ex.OP5, copy of certificate of registration, Ex.OP6,copy of FIR, Ex.OP7, copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP8, copy of policy conditions, Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
The ld. counsel for the complainant has pleaded that the material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OP. It is also not disputed that the complainant claimed the amount on the ground of the theft of the vehicle. The OP got the matter investigated through Investigator Randhir Singh. Report of the Investigator is on the record as Ex.OP3.It was concluded that the vehicle was stolen by unknown person during intervening night of 10/11.8.2015. Police is clueless. The claim seems to be genuine. Therefore, this fact also proves that the claim was genuine. The OP has repudiated the claim vide letter dated 5.10.2016,Ex.OP1. It is pleaded that the complainant has lodged FIR after a gap of 36 days and intimated the OP on 3.10.2015 i.e. after a gap of 54 days. As the claim is repudiated on the ground of delay only, therefore, the OP cannot raise any other ground to justify repudiation. Complainant has brought on record copy of the report, Ex.C5 from Incharge Control Room. It is proved that the complainant reported about the theft on 11.8.2015 at about 9.25 AM. It is further revealed that the matter was brought into the notice of the MHC of concerned police station Ananj Mandi. This document proves that the complainant reported the matter to the police immediately. Of course, the police has registered the FIR on 1616.9.2015 but the complainant cannot be held at fault for this delay in FIR. This Forum can also take judicial note of the fact that the police is usually reluctant to record FIR in theft cases. Even otherwise the claim was found genuine by the Investigator also. No prejudice has been caused to OP by delay in F.I.R.Therefore, the repudiation amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to claim relief.
In support of this submission, the ld. counsel for the complainant has cited 2018(1)CLT 202 Royal Sundaram Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Umesh Kumar Verma, IV(2017)CPJ 327(NC) Ravinder Singh Vs. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd., CPJ 10(SC) Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Anr., 2015(3)CLT 476 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Gurmeet Kaur & Ors. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that the contract of insurance is a contract. The parties are bound by the terms and conditions revealed in the policy. Complainant has placed on record, copy of the policy, Ex.C3.OP has also produced detailed terms and conditions Exs.OP1/9. Parties are bound by the terms and conditions. The first condition is that, “in the event of loss, the insured shall give in writing immediately notice to the police and co-operate with the company”. Therefore, the foremost condition of this contract is immediate intimation to the police and to the OP. As per complainant, the theft took place on 10/11.8.2015 but the matter was reported to the police on 15.9.2015 i.e. after 36 days. There is no valid explanation for this delay. Similarly, intimation to the OP was given on 3.10.2015 i.e. after delay of 54 days. The OP was deprived from making efforts to get the stolen vehicle traced. In this way, the Op has been prejudiced.Therefore, the OP is justified in repudiated the claim.
To support this submission, the ld. counsel for the OP has cited IV(2017)CPJ 327(NC) Ravinder Singh Vs. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd., II (2017) CPJ 83 (NC) Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Roop Lal Dangi, We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions and citation referred to by the ld. counsel for parties. The admitted facts are that the complainant, being the owner of the vehicle in question got the same insured with the OP. IDV of the vehicle was Rs.4,82,000/- and covered period was 28.2.2015 to midnight 27.2.2016.As per the complainant his vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 10/11-8-2015.The OP has repudiated the claim vide letter dated 5.10.2016,Ex.C8.A perusal of this letter reveales that the OP has closed the file as ‘no claim’ as per condition No.1 of the policyas complainant had lodged the FIR with the police station after the gap of 36 days and intimated OP about theft only on 3.10.2015 after a gap of 54 days . It can safely be inferred that the OP has repudiated the claim on the ground of delay in reporting the matter to the police and to the OP. Complainant has placed on record, copy of the report, Ex.C5, obtained from Incharge Control Room. This report is based on the register maintained by control room.It is reported that complainant Jaswant Singh on 11.8.2015, at 9.25AM intimated at helpline No.100 from mobile No.90412-31405 that vehicle has been stolen. This fact was also intimated to Munshi Police Station Anaj Mandi namely Pawan Kumar. There is no rebuttal to this document. Therefore, it is proved that the complainant intimated to police immediately after noticing theft of his vehicle. Of course, the formal FIR was registered on 16.9.2015 but if there is any delay in registering the FIR, the complainant cannot make to suffer. It is also the matter of common knowledge that police is reluctant to register FIR in theft cases.
It is also not disputed that the OP appointed Investigator. Report of the Investigator is on the file as Ex.OP3.Investigator has concluded that the claim seems to be genuine. Police is clueless. This fact further shows that no prejudice has been caused to the OP by delay in reporting the matter. The complainant has also placed on record copy of the order passed by the Ilaqua Magistrate,Ex.C7, which proves that the police submitted untraced report, which was accepted on 16.8.2016. In the case of Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Anr., CPJ 10(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“11.It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightway go to the Insurance company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in imitation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs to emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act”. - These above observations are also fully applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In the case in hand, it is proved that the complainant immediately informed to the police. It is proved from the report of the Investigator that the claim is genuine. The delay in registration of FIR is also explained by the complainant. There is nothing to show that any prejudice has been caused to the OP. Therefore, the condition regarding delay is not to help the OP to justify repudiation .Therefore, the repudiation is not sustainable and stand setaside.
The IDV of the vehicle is Rs.4,82,000/-. It is well settled that the IDV remains unchanged for the whole year in case of theft. The OP has illegally repudiated the claim. Therefore, the complainant is also entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 5.10.2016 till realization. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint with a direction to the OP to pay the amount of Rs.4,82,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of theft till realization.
Since the complainant has not claimed cost of litigation, therefore, parties are left to bear their own costs. Order be complied by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room. ANNOUNCED DATED:3.8.2018 Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh Neelam Gupta M. P. Singh Pahwa Member Member President | |
