Uttar Pradesh

StateCommission

A/519/2018

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vimal Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Kumar

01 Jul 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP
C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010
 
First Appeal No. A/519/2018
( Date of Filing : 20 Mar 2018 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 17/01/2018 in Case No. C/587/2012 of District Agra-II)
 
1. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd
Lucknow
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Vimal Kumar
Agra
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN PRESIDENT
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
Dated : 01 Jul 2019
Final Order / Judgement

RESERVED

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                              UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                 APPEAL NO. 519 OF 2018

        (Against the judgment/order dated 17-01-2018 in Complaint Case

                           No.587/2012 of the District Consumer Forum-II, Agra)

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited

E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area

Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302022

Branch Office 16, Chintal House

Station Road, Lucknow.

Through its Manager 

                                                                                        ...Appellant

                                                     Vs.

01.Vimal Kumar

S/o Sri Ram Narayan

R/o Anjani Bihar Colony

Bypass Road, Thana Atamadulla

District Agra

02.India Bulls Housing Finance Limited

Sanjay Palac, Agra.

                                                                                      ...Respondents

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

For the Appellant                :  Sri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent             :  Sri Naveen Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.

              

Dated : 31-07-2019

                                            JUDGMENT

           PER MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before this State Commission against the judgment and order dated 17-01-2018 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, Agra in Complaint Case No. 587/2012 Vimal Kumar V/s Shriram General  Insurance Company Limited and others whereby the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint and passed following order in Hindi.

''परिवादी का परिवाद विपक्षी सं0 1 व 2 के विरूद्ध स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षी सं0 1 व 2 को आदेशित किया जाता है कि प्रश्‍नगत वाहन का बीमित घोषित मूल्‍य मु0 11,00,000/-रू0 तथा इस धनराशि

 

 

:2:

पर परिवाद दायर करने की तिथि से 06 प्रतिशत वार्षिक साधारण ब्‍याज की दर से ब्‍याज भुगतान की तिथि तक इस निर्णय के एक माह के अंदर परिवादी को अदा करें। परिवादी वाद व्‍यय के रूप में मु0 5000/-रू0 विपक्षी सं0 1 व 2 से पाने की अधिकारी है।''

Feeling aggrieved by the above order passed by District Consumer Forum opposite party of complaint Shriram General Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal.

Learned Counsel Sri Dinesh Kumar appeared for appellant.

Learned Counsel Sri Naveen Kumar Tiwari appeared for respondent.

Learned Counsel Sri Rishi Kumar has filed vakalatnama for respondent No.02 but did not turn out on the date of final hearing of appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant. I have perused impugned judgment and order as well as records. I have perused records received from District Consumer Forum.

I have perused written arguments filed on behalf of appellant and respondent No.01.

In brief relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the respondent/complainant has filed above complaint before District Consumer Forum against opposite parties (1) Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (2) Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and (3) India Bulls Housing Finance Limited wherein it has been stated that the respondent/complainant is registered owner of truck bearing registration No. RJ 05 GA-7029 which was insured with Insurance Company of opposite parties No. 01 and 02.

It has been further stated in the complaint that the truck was stolen on 17-03-2012 during validity period of insurance policy. F.I.R. was lodged in local police station Etmadud Daula but the police could not recover truck and submitted final report after investigation. Thereafter the

 

 

:3:

Insurance Company intimated respondent/complainant that his claim has been made ‘no claim’. After receiving intimation from Insurance Company the respondent/complainant went to the office of appellant Insurance Company alongwith his wife and showed all papers and requested for payment of insured amount of the vehicle. But Branch Manager Opposite Party No.01 refused to pay insured amount to complainant and misbehaved with his wife. Therefore feeling aggrieved respondent/complainant has filed complaint before District Consumer Forum.

Opposite parties No. 01 and 02 in complaint have filed joint written statement before District Consumer Forum wherein it has been stated that the aforesaid truck of respondent/complainant was insured with appellant Insurance Company for the period extending from 02-04-2011 to 01-04-2012 and the insured value of truck was Rs.11,00,000/-.

In written statement it has been stated by the opposite parties No. 01 and 02 that the intimation of theft was given to Insurance Company by respondent/complainant on 20-06-2012 while the alleged occurrence of theft is alleged to have taken place on 17-03-2012. Thus, the respondent/complainant has violated condition No. 01 of insurance policy by giving delayed intimation of theft.

In written statement opposite parties No. 01 and 02 have further stated that the vehicle was left unattended and unsecured. Therefore, condition No.4 of the policy has also been violated. The Insurance Company has rightly repudiated claim of respondent/complainant.

Opposite party No.03 India Bulls Housing Finance Limited has been impleaded in complaint by amendment application but it did not turn out despite sufficient service of notice.

After having gone through pleadings of parties as well as evidence on record the District Consumer Forum is of the view that the respondent/complainant has not caused delay in lodging F.I.R. He has given intimation to appellant Insurance Company on 20-03-2012 through registered post. As such the repudiation of claim made by Insurance Company is not justified.

In view of above the District Consumer Forum has allowed

 

:4:

complaint and passed order extracted above.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is against law as well as evidence. The respondent/complainant has given delayed intimation to police as well as to Insurance Company and has thereby violated condition of insurance policy. The Insurance Company has rightly repudiated claim of respondent/complainant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the vehicle in question was left unattended and unsecured. Proper precaution has not been taken for the safety and security of the vehicle. This is also violation of condition of policy. On this ground also the insurance claim of respondent/complainant cannot be accepted.

Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has opposed appeal and contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is in accordance with law and evidence. The respondent/complainant has given immediate intimation to appellant Insurance Company as well as to police but the police did not lodge F.I.R. consequently respondent/complainant has moved application under 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before Magistrate concerned. Thereafter F.I.R. has been registered by the order of Magistrate. The claim of respondent/complainant canot be repudiated on the ground of delayed intimation to police or Insurance Company.

Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has further contended that it is not correct to say that the respondent/complainant has not taken proper precaution for the security and safety of the vehicle. The claim of respondent/complainant cannot be refused on this ground.

I have considered submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.

The appellant Insurance Company has repudiated claim of respondent/complainant as ‘no claim’ vide letter dated 03-07-2012 wherein repudiation is alleged to have been made on following ground.

“Dear Sir,

This is with reference to claim intimated by you, it has been observed that loss allegedly took place on 17-03-2012 and the claim was

 

:5:

belatedly intimated to us as on 20-06-2012. This constitutes serious breach of condition no.1 of the insurance policy. The relevant policy conditions are reproduced for reference.

Conditions

This Policy and the Schedule shall be read together and any word or expression to which a specific meaning has been attached in any part of this Policy or of the Schedule shall bear the same meaning wherever it may appear.

  1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such Information and assistace 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 or ftal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give raise to a claim under this Policy......

We hope you will appreciate our stand that payment of any claim has to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy issued. Hence due to delay intimation to us this claim has been repudiated or considered as no claim.”

In repudiation letter it has not been mentioned that the respondent/complainant has not taken proper precaution for the security and safety of the vehicle and has thereby violated condition of insurance policy. Therefore, fresh ground cannot be raised by appellant Insurance Company to oppose present complaint.

Copy of chik F.I.R. has been annexed with memo of appeal. It shows that F.I.R. has been registered in police station Etmadud Daula on 15-06-2012 by order of Magistrate. It further shows that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for getting registration of F.I.R. was moved before Magistrate on 26-03-2012.

Respondent/complainant has filed affidavit before District Consumer Forum wherein it has been stated that on the date of

 

:6:

occurrence 17-03-2012 he gave information to police station Etmadud Daula but police did not register F.I.R. Then he sent application to S.H.O. Etmadud Daula and S.S.P. Agra even then F.I.R. was not registered by police. Therefore he moved application before Magistrate for getting registration of F.I.R.

Considering above circumstances stated by respondent/complainant and date of application moved before Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. I am of the view that the District Consumer Forum has rightly held that the delay has not been caused by respondent/complainant in lodging F.I.R. Further more delayed intimation to police is not a ground for repudiation of claim.

In affidavit filed by respondent/complainant before District Consumer Forum it has been stated that intimation was sent to Insurance Company on 20-03-2012 by post. Copy of intimation dated 20-03-2012 has been produced by respondent/complainant before District Consumer Forum alongwith postal receipt.

Mr. Manish Gupta, Legal Manager of appellant Insurance Company hasw filed affidavit before District Consumer Forum wherein intimation dated 20-03-2019 allegedly sent by post to Insurance Company has not been denied specifically. Before District Consumer Forum genuineness of postal receipt annexed with intimation dated 20-03-2012 has not been disputed.

In view of discussion made above after having gone through affidavits filed on behalf of both parties as well as materials on record I am of the view that the District Consumer Forum has rightly held that the respondent/complainant has not caused delay in giving intimation to Insurance Company.

The District Consumer Forum has placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Om Prakash V/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and another (supra). The relevant part of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court is extracted below.

“It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway 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

 

:7:

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 intimation 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  8which have been otherwise proved 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. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act.”

Following judicial pronouncements have been referred by learned Counsel for appellant.

  1. Sonell Clocks and Gifts Limited V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in IV(2018) CPJ 1(SC).
  2. Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/s Pravesh Chander Chadha decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 17-08-2010 in Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010.
  3. Sukhbir Kaur V/s Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited and another reported in I(2018) CPJ 98(NC).

I have perused judgments referred by learned Counsel for appellant. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above judicial pronouncements referred by learned Counsel for appellant are not helpful to appellant on facts of present case.

In view of discussion made above after having gone through pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record I am of the view that the District Consumer Forum has rightly held that the appellant Insurance Company has committed deficiency in refusing claim of

 

:8:

respondent/complainant.

Indisputably the insured value of the truck is Rs.11,00,000/-. The District Consumer Forum has rightly ordered appellant Insurance Company to pay I.D.V. of the vehicle with interest at the rate of 6% per anum from the date of filing of complaint till date of payment. Rs.5,000/- awarded by District Consumer Forum to respondent/complainant as cost of litigation appears appropriate.

In view of above appeal is dismissed.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellant Insurance Company under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act in this appeal shall be remitted to the District Consumer Forum with interest accrued for disposal by District Consumer Forum.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.

 

                                                                ( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                 PRESIDENT

      

          Pnt.

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN]
PRESIDENT
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.