Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/128

MANJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

RAJAN CHAHIL

01 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

 

                                               Consumer Complaint No.128 of 2019

                                              Date of institution: 11.12.2019

                                              Date of Decision: 01.12.2021

 

 

Manjit Singh aged about 49 years son of Hardev Singh, resident of Village Plassi Bhanam, District Rupnagar 

…….Complainant

Versus

 

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Senior        Divisional Manager, Red Cross Bhawan, Sector 1, Naya Nangal,     District Rupnagar.

2. United India Insurance Company Limited, through its General Manager, Having Head Office No.19, Lane IV, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600034                                            ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Ranjit Singh, President.

                       Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member

 

Present:    Sh. Rajan Chahil, Adv. counsel for complainant

Sh. Jatinderpal Singh, Adv. for O.Ps.

              
 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Ranjit Singh, President

 

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant had purchased one vehicle Bolero Camper having registration No. PB-12-Y-3808, engine No.GHD4H66018, Chassis No.MA1RY2GHKD3J50569 of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, for earning his livelihood from Himmat Singh, son of Onkar Singh, resident of Village Nangran Kamlot, Post Office Bhalan, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar, after getting finance amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- from HDB Financial Services Limited, railway road Nangal and got transferred the vehicle in his name. The complainant had also paid road tax upto 30.06.2018. The complainant had driven the vehicle with the Regular Solution Network Kharar but due to health problem he could not able to drive the vehicle for some days and the vehicle in question was handed over to Sh. Varinder Singh Rana son of Sh. Sari Som Nath Rana, resident of House No.2900, sector 57, Chandigarh, c/o SCO No.74, Top Floor, Gillco Valley Kharar, District Mohali. The vehicle in question was insured by the complainant from the OPS under GCV Public Carrier. The policy bearing No.1109003117P1083332333 was allotted to the CC and the same was valid from 12.09.2017 to 11.09.2018. It is further averred that on the intervening night of 20/21.06.2018, the CC was shocked to know that his vehicle was missing, thereafter he searched his vehicle there and even he asked the local persons. On 24.06.2018, CC lodged an FIR bearing No.140 dated 24.06.2018 at police station Kharar in this regard. He also informed the office of the OPs regarding the theft. The police of PS Kharar could not traced the vehicle of the complainant till date and presented the untraced report before the court of SDJM, Kharar on 20.03.2019. After that, the complainant approached to the office of Ops regarding claiming the insured amount of vehicle amounting to Rs.3,50,000/-.The complainant was surprised when he received a letter dated 15.07.2019 from the OP NO.1 repudiating his claim. The complainant has submitted all the requisite documents i.e. RC, Valid Insurance Policy etc. but the Ops had rejected the valid claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. the CC has sought the following relief:-

1. The O.Ps. be directed to give the insurance claim amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the CC
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/ as litigation expenses.

The complaint of the CC is signed and also verified.

2.        In reply, the O.Ps. have challenging the veracity of the complaint on                 the ground of maintainability & jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is averred that     the complainant had not intimated about the theft of the vehicle to the OPs immediately.  It is admitted by the complainant at the time of theft, that the vehicle in question was not in his possession and the same had been delivered to an unauthorized person Varinder Singh Rana. The vehicle in question was not in possession of the complainant at the time of theft. It is further stated that the FIR had been lodged by the complainant after 4 days of the theft. There is no where mentioned the fact by the complainant in the complaint that after the occurrence, he immediately or after few days intimates the OPs. It is further stated that on 30.08.2018, the complainant had intimated the Ops regarding the said incident after a long and unexplained delayed of 71 days which falls under the category of breach of terms & conditions of insurance policy. As per conditions of contract of insurance:- Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon occurrence of any incidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as he company shall require. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on their part, the O.Ps. has denied any deficiency in service on their part.

3.           The complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A along    with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops. has tendered some documents Ex.OP1 to  Ex.OP3 and  closed the evidence.  

4.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file along with written arguments filed by the counsel for the parties, carefully and minutely.

5.           It is pertinent to mention here that the learned counsel for the Ops during the arguments has admitted the subscription of the insurance policy      by the CC. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that due to health problems the complainant could not able to drive the vehicle in question and given the said vehicle to Sh. Varinder Singh Rana and at the time of incident the vehicle in question was fully insured. He also argued that police of PS Kharar could not traced the vehicle till date and untraced report was also presented by the police. The OPs has repudiated the claim of the complainant on flimsy and illegal grounds. Lastly prayed that deficiency stands proved, complainant is a consumer and the complaint deserves to be   allowed with costs.

6.           The learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant nowhere mentioned in the complaint regarding the relationship between the complainant and Sh. Varinder Singh Rana and even not placed on record any rent agreement. He stated that there is nowhere mentioned in the complaint by the complainant that after the occurrence, he immediately or after few days had intimated the OPs. However, it has come on record that intimation of the alleged incident had brought to the knowledge of the OPs after delay 71 days and it is breach of the terms of the conditions of the insurance policy. contract of the insurance.  Lastly prayed to dismiss           the complaint with cost.

7.           Before proceeding further, we would like to note down condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the policy, by placing reliance upon which, the claim of the complainant was rejected. The said condition reads thus;

               "Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately 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. Every letter, claim writ,        summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the      company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be    given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have          knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest for fatel inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under the           policy. In case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject      of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to         the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction          of the offender.

8.       In the first part of the said condition, it is mandated that on suffering of any loss or damage, immediate intimation be sent to the company. The latter part of the condition states that in case of major theft/loss, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing         the conviction of the offender. It is pertinent to mention here that word "immediate" would not mean information to be sent within 24 hours, 48 hours or 72 hours. It needs to be sent within a reasonable time and what is   the reasonable time, it all dependents upon facts of each case.  It is important to mention here that it is a 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. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy holders in the insurance industry. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which has been otherwise provide to be genuine. It needs no 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. Hence, the plea regarding condition No.1 of the OPs is rejected.

9.       Now, the second question arise before us is that the complainant lodged the FIR after delay of 4 days. In the present case, the vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 20/21.6.2018 and the FIR was registered on 24.06.2018 immediately from the knowledge of the theft. This is a routine practice in the        Punjab Police that they did not register the case of theft immediately on intimation by the sufferer. It is advised that the sufferer should first trace the vehicle at his own level and in case it is not found then the case will be registered by the Police. It is also sometime told to the sufferer that after the registration of the FIR the legal complications   has arise such as taking the said vehicle on superdari from illaqa  Magistrate etc.  It is also admitted fact that the owners of the commercial vehicles are illiterate, who ply these vehicles to earn their livelihood and they did not know the problems which they have to face for the settlement of their clams afterwards.  The delay in recording the FIR, lays on the part of the police and the complainant cannot be blamed for the same.

10.     The learned counsel for the complainant has brought our attention on judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal       Commission, New Delhi, case titled as Anandbhai Mansangbhai Chaudhary Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited, decided on       11.02.2020, wherein it is held that circular issued by the     Insurance Regulator Development Authority (IRDA)     No.IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09.2011 dated 20.09.2011, has    instructed to all its general insurance companies to cinsider the     genuine claims filed even with delay and should not be rejected   only on the ground of delay.

            The learned counsel for the complainant has also brought        our attention to another judgment of the Hon'ble Haryana State       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in case         titled as the Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited         Vs Yadram, decided on 19.03.2014, wherein it is held that theft       of insured truck-Repudiation of claim-on the ground of delay in     FIR and Intimation. Deficiency in service alleged-Complaint     allowed- Challenge by appeal- Held, truck was with driver and      after contacting owner driver lodged FIR-Admittedly, in case of     theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. Thus, delay    of 15 days is not significant in such a case-Insurance Company       rightly held liable to indemnify owner of vehicle-Appeal        dismissed of IRDA dated 20.09.2011 relied upon.

11.The learned counsel for the OPs has cited various judgment            of the higher authorities. We feel, that the facts of the     present case are different from the facts mentioned in the     judgment cited by the learned counsel for the complainant.

12.  In view of our above discussion and authorities produced by the learned counsel for the complainant, we do not find any cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence submitted by the O.Ps. for repudiating or rejecting or not settling the claim of the CC, therefore, the present complaint is allowed with the directions to        the OPs to pay Rs.3,50,000/- (Insured amount) with interest @     7.5% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle in question  till its realization to the CC. We further order that the O.Ps. to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation including litigation expenses. The Ops are further directed to comply with the above said order within the period of 45 days from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

Announced

December 01, 2021

(Ranjit Singh)

 

                                            

 

(Ranvir Kaur)