National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs Ashwani Kumar & Anr. on 4 February, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3082 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 23/05/2013 in Appeal No. 930/2012 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. SCO NO-109-111, SECTOR-17-D CHANDIGARH 2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. NEAR SECRETARIAT, SCHEME NO-11, HOSHIARPUR PUNJAB 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. , HEAD OFFICE, 88, JANPATH , NEW DELHI. ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ASHWANI KUMAR & ANR. S/O DHAIN SINGH, R/O VPO , RAM NAGAR COLONY, TEHSIL MUKHERIAN, DISTRICT : HOSHIARPUR PUNJAB 2. INDUSIND BANK LTD., 501, ALFA ESTATE (4TH FLOOR), OPP, MAIN BUS STAND, G.T ROAD, JALANDHAR PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Brig (Retd) B.S. Taunque, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Sanjeev Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Viren Chaudhary, Deputy Manager Legal
Dated : 04 Feb 2020 ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. against the order dated 23.5.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.930 of 2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/complainant was having insurance of his truck from the opposite parties/petitioners herein with effect from 05.02.2007 to 04.02.2008. During the currency of the insurance policy, the truck was stolen on 01.01.2008 from petrol pump. The truck was being driven by driver Suresh Kumar. The police was informed by the complainant and the Insurance Company was also informed. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the ignition key was left inside the truck. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum being complaint No.132 of 2011. The District Forum vide its order dated 14.05.2012 allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay the IDV of the vehicle Rs. 8,00,000/-. The Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the State Commission being appeal No.930 of 2012. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 23.5.2013.
3. Hence the present revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that intimation to police was given on 05.01.2008 and the FIR was lodged on 14.09.2008. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company stated that the Insurance Company was informed after three months of the date of theft. The Insurance Company appointed an investigator, who recorded the statements of the driver Suresh Kumar as well as the owner of the vehicle and both of them stated that the ignition key was left in the vehicle, which facilitated the theft. Learned counsel argued that first of all, in the cases of theft, the policy conditions required that intimation should be given to the police as well as to the Insurance Company whereas, in the present case the police was informed after four days and the Insurance Company was informed after three months from the date of theft, hence this condition is clearly violated. Learned counsel further argued that one of the conditions of the policy is that the insured will take due care and precaution in respect of the vehicle for safeguarding the same. In the present case, the ignition key was left inside the truck and therefore, it cannot be said that due care was taken for safeguarding the vehicle. Thus, this condition was also violated. Both the fora below have not given due consideration to these aspects and the orders of the fora below suffer from material irregularity as well as illegality.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that both the fora below have given concurrent finding that the insurance claim is payable and the scope under the revision petition is quite limited as the facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission. Learned counsel stated that the intimation to the police was given on the next day, however, the police lodged FIR on 14.09.2008. This is due to the prevailing practice in the State of Punjab that the police writes the FIR when the police either closes the case or there is another incident in which the case can be clubbed. No point of delay was raised in the repudiation letter and therefore, the same cannot be raised at this stage.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has alleged that the intimation to the police was given on 05.1.2008 whereas, the learned counsel for the complainant states that intimation was given on the next day. I must say that the Insurance Company has no interest in filing the present revision petition because no relevant document has been filed. No copy of the FIR has been filed and copy of the repudiation letter is also not filed. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company could not tell as to when the Insurance Company received the information about the theft from the complainant though he vaguely told that the intimation was received after three months from the date of theft. In the absence of any material on record in respect of intimation received by the Insurance Company, it cannot be presumed that the intimation to the Insurance Company was delayed. In the present case, the FIR was lodged on 14.09.2008 and the delay in registration of the FIR is not clear because learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company has accepted that intimation to the police was given on 5.1.2008. No such papers have been filed by the Insurance Company to prove that the intimation to the police was given on 05.01.2008 and similarly no paper was filed by the complainant to prove that the intimation to the police was given on 02.1.2008. Clearly, there was some delay in giving intimation to the police, which is evident that even the FIR was lodged after nine months. The assertion of the learned counsel for the complainant cannot be accepted that the police either lodges the FIR when the FR is ready or when the other items are clubbed. The delay in FIR is evident in the present case. In a theft case, the delay in intimation to the police is quite relevant during the initial period as the stolen vehicle can be taken to far off places and may even be dismantled.
7. With respect to controversy of the ignition key being left in the truck, it is seen that the statements given by the driver and the owner of the vehicle are not filed along with investigation report and hence their veracity becomes doubtful. The learned counsel for the complainant has stated that keys of the truck have been exhibited before the District Forum. It is the assertion of the Insurance Company that each vehicle has two sets of keys and only one set is exhibited and thus, other set was inside the vehicle. Even, if one gives benefit of doubt to the complainant in respect of leaving the ignition key inside the vehicle, it is found that there was delay in giving intimation to the police and lodging FIR. Thus, there is a violation of condition no.1 of the policy where in matters of theft, the intimation is immediately required to be given to the police. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC) has observed that in case of violation of non-intrinsic condition of the policy, the claim can be settled on non-standard basis upto 75% of the claim.
8. Relying on this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the violation of condition requiring immediate intimation to the police and Insurance Company, I deem it appropriate to allow the insurance claim at 75% of otherwise admissible claim which is for Rs.8,00,000/-.
9. Based on the above discussion, the order of the State Commission dated 23.05.2013 is modified to the extent that the settlement of insurance claim will be for Rs.6,00,000/- (75% of Rs.8,00,000/-). Rest of the order of the State Commission remains unchanged. The Insurance Company is directed to comply with the order of the State Commission as modified by this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt/service of this order.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER