ORAL
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 896 OF 2011
(Against the judgment/order dated 28-04-2011 in Complaint Case
No.13/2010 of the District Consumer Forum, Pilibhit)
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
Iffco House, 3rd Floor
34 Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019
Through its Manager
...Appellant
Vs.
Vishal Agarwal
S/o Sri Surya Prakash
R/o Mohalla Sarai Khan
Thana Kotwali
Tehsil and District Pilibhit
...Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MR. UDAI SHANKAR AWASTHI, MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. GOVARDHAN YADAV, MEMBER
For the Appellant : Sri Ashok Mehrotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate.
Dated : 20-07-2019
JUDGMENT
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 28-04-2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Pilibhit in Complaint Case No. 13/2010 Vishal Agarwal V/s Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited whereby the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint and passed order in Hindi which is extracted below.
''परिवादी विशाल अग्रवाल का यह उपभोक्ता परिवाद विरूद्ध विपक्षीगण 1 लगायत 3 के स्वीकार किया जाता है। तद्नुसार विपक्षीगण 1 लगायत को एतद् द्वारा संयुक्त रूप से एवं पृथक-पृथक यह निर्देश दिया जाता है कि वे इस निर्णय की दिनॉंक से 30 दिन के अंदर परिवादी
:2:
के वाहन के चोरी होने के फलस्वरूप हुई क्षति की धनराशि 28,000/-रू0 (अट्ठाईस हजार रू0) का भुगतान 18 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज कर दर से कर देंगे तथा मानसिक, शारीरिक एवं आर्थिक क्षति के मद में अलग से परिवादी को 10,000/-रू0 (दस हजार रू0) की धनराशि का भुगतान भी कर देंगे। विपक्षीगण 1 लगायत 3 को एतद् द्वारा यह निर्देश भी दिया जाता है कि वे परिवादी को इस परिवाद में लड़ने में हुए व्यय तथा अधिवक्ता को दिए गए शुल्क के रूप में अलग से क्रमश: 3,000 + 5,000 = 8,000/-रू0 (आठ हजार रू0) की धनराशि का भुगतान भी 30 दिन के अंदर कर देंगे और कृत कार्यवाही से इस फोरम को 60 दिन के अंदर लिखित रूप में अवगत करा देंगे।''
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum opposite party of complaint has filed this appeal.
Learned Counsel Sri Ashok Mehrotra appeared for appellant.
Learned Counsel Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava appeared for respondent.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.
In brief relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the respondent/complainant has filed complaint before District Consumer Forum for redressal of grievance arising out of repudiation of insurance claim made by appellant Insurance Company vide letter dated 08-03-2010.
The appellant Insurance Company has repudiated claim of respondent/complainant regarding theft of motorcycle beaing registration No. UP 26E-4967 insured with policy No. 40520907 issued by appellant Insurance Company on two grounds.
(1) that the intimation of theft was given to Insurance Company after delay of 62 days.
(2) both keys of the lost vehicle has not been provided by the
:3:
Insured respondent/complainant to appellant Insurance Company.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the claim of respondent/complainant has been repudiated on genuine grounds. The respondent/complainant has committed breach of conditions of insurance policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company has right to repudiate claim of respondent/complainant. The impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum is erroeneous and against terms and conditions of the policy.
Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is correct and in accordance with law. The respondent/complainant has lodged immediate report of incident of theft in police station and has given intimation to appellant Insurance Company next day of occurrence. The grounds alleged by Insurance Company for repudiation of claim are incorrect.
We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.
Incident of theft is alleged to have taken place in the night at 10.00 p.m. on 09-09-2009. Indisputabaly first information report of incident has been lodged in local police station on 09-09-2009 at 11.00 p.m. and Crime No. 1132/2009 under Section 379 I.P.C. against unknown person has been registered in local police station.
In complaint it has been averred by respondent/complainant that on next day i.e. 10-09-2009 the respondent/complainant went to the office of appellant Insurance Company to give intimation of theft where the employee of Insurance Company told him to give intimation of theft to Insurance Company after submission of final report by police.
In complaint it has been further averred by the respondent/complainant that the respondent/complainant again went to the office of appellant Insurance Company on 16-09-2009, 22-09-2009, 06-10-2009, 15-10-2009 and 15-11-2009 to give intimation to Insurance Company but the employees of the Insurance Company refused to accept
:4:
written intimation of the occurrence. The District Consumer Forum has accepted above version of respondent/complainant regarding intimation given to appellant Insurance Company on the next date 10-09-2009. The conclusion drawn by District Consumer Forum on this subject is based on judicious analysis of pleadings and evidence on record.
In view of above it is apparent that the police report has been lodged promptly on the same day by respondent/complainant about alleged incident of theft and the respondent/complainant has given intimation of theft to the office of appellant Insurance Company on the next day. As such the repudiation of claim on the ground of delayed intimation is not justified.
Merely on the ground of non production of second key of the vehicle it cannot be said that the respondent/complainant has not taken proper precaution for the security and safety of the vehicle.
In view of above we are of the view that the appellant Insurance Company has repudiated claim of respondent/complainant on unjustified grounds. As such the appellant Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service. The District Consumer Forum has rightly ordered appellant/opposite party to pay insured value of the vehicle to respondent/complainant but the interest awarded by District Consumer Forum at the rate of 18% per annum is very high and excessive. It should be reduced to 9% per annum and further the interest should be awarded from the date of complaint.
Since the interest is being awarded on insured value of vehicle we are of the view that Rs.10,000/- awarded by District Consumer Forum as compensation for mental and physical harassment should be set aside.
Rs.8,000/- cost awarded by District Consumer Forum appears appropriate.
In view of above appeal is allowed partially. The impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is modified and the appellant Insurance Company is ordered to pay IDV value of the vehicle Rs.28,000/- to respondent/complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of actual payment.
:5:
Further the appellant Insurance Company is ordered to pay Rs.8,000/- cost
awarded by District Consumer Forum to respondent/complainant.
Rs.10,000/- awarded by District Consumer Forum as compensation for mental and physical harassment to respondent/complainant is set aside.
In appeal both parties shall bear their own costs.
Any amount if deposited under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act in this appeal shall be remitted to the District Consumer Forum alongwith interest accrued for disposal in accordance with this judgment.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
( U. S. AWASTHI )
MEMBER
( GOVARDHAN YADAV )
MEMBER
Pnt.
