National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shri Kuldeep Singh vs Ifco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 18 January, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2982 OF 2012 (From the Order dated 2.5.2012 in Appeal No. 456/2010 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) Shri Kuldeep Singh Petitioner S/o sh. Hoshiyar Singh R/ Village - Damayapur Post Office - Badli Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana Versus IFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent
Reg. Office at:
IFCO House, IIIrd Floor 34, Nehru Place New Delhi Through Its Manager BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitender Vashisht, Advocate Pronounced on : 18th January, 2013 PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was the original complainant before the District Forum, against the order dated
2.5.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (State Commission for short) by which the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent / opposite party and reversed the order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bhiwani in complaint No.503 of 2008. The District Forum had earlier accepted the complaint of the petitioner by granting the following reliefs:-
(i) To pay Rs.15,18,100/- along with interest @ 12% p.a., i.e., from 18.2.2007 the date of repudiation till its final realization.
(ii) To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges
2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the OP Insurance Co. had challenged the same before the State Commission which vide its impugned order reversed the order of the District Forum and accepted the appeal of the OP Insurance Co. Aggrieved by this order of the State Commission, the complainant has now filed the present revision petition against the impugned order.
3. Brief facts of this case which are not disputed between the parties are that the petitioner / complainant had got insured his truck bearing Regn. No.HR-63A-1885 with the respondent / OP for the period from 9.5.2006. Unfortunately, the vehicle was stolen on 19.12.2006. FIR No.607 of 2006 dated 30.12.2006 was lodged and information was sent to the opposite party on 31.12.2006 along with requisite documents. However, the claim of the complainant was closed as No Claim and the complainant was informed by the OP Insurance Co. accordingly vide its letter dated 18.2.2007. Alleging it as a case of deficiency in service, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Bhiwani. On being noticed, the OP Co. contested the complaint. It is submitted that the vehicle in question was stolen on 19.12.2006 whereas the FIR was lodged on 30.12.2006 and the information was sent to the OP on 31.12.2006. It is further submitted that the complainant did not produce requisite documents. Some information which was required was also not submitted despite repeated reminders and hence the claim was closed as No Claim and the complainant informed accordingly vide letter dated 18.7.2008. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence placed before it, the District Forum accepted the complaint and granted the relief mentioned hereinbefore. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OP Insurance Co. filed an appeal before the State Commission which was allowed and the order of the District Forum was reversed and set aside by the State Commission vide its impugned order. The complainant/petitioner has now challenged the same through the present revision petition.
3. During the course of admission hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the claim of the complainant where the theft of the vehicle is an admitted fact, it is the responsibility of the OP Insurance Co. to pay the claim amount (known as insured amount) which is reflected in the complaint petition and in no circumstances, the respondent company can ignore its own responsibility to pay the insured amount to the complainant only on the ground of delayed FIR. He further submitted that the complainant informed the matter immediately after its occurrence to the police but the police did not want to proceed for investigation into the matter and started the case only on 30.12.2006 although the matter was reported in writing by the petitioner on 19.12.2006. In view of this, it was the job of the police to start the investigation and the complainant could not compel the police to start the case and hence the State Commission erred in not appreciating this aspect properly while non-suiting the claim of the petitioner. He also argued that the word Immediately which is mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy, does not specify the time limit within which the insured will inform the matter and hence even if there was some delay in informing the matter to the OP Insurance Co., the same should have been ignored by the State Commission since the petitioner had already informed the local police station of the theft in writing on 19.12.2006. He, therefore, pleaded that the order passed by the District Forum was based on correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances and hence the same needs to be restored and confirmed and the impugned order be set aside.
4. Learned counsel has also cited the two cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Shivhare [IV (2007) CPJ 366 (NC)] and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha [IV (2008) CPJ 211 (NC)] decided by the National Commission in support of his submission.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also gone through the two orders of the National Commission relied upon by the learned counsel. The State Commission while reversing the order of the District Forum and non-suiting the claim of the petitioner has made the following observations in support of the impugned order:-
Undisputedly, the vehicle in question was stolen on 19.12.2006 and the information to the Insurance Company was given on 31.12.2006 i.e. after twelve days from the date of alleged accident. No FIR was recorded in the concerned police station on the date of theft. Thus, there was violation of the condition No. 1 of the policy. The District Consumer Forum has not appreciated the factual position on record and committed great error while accepting the complaint of the complainant and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
6. While passing the impugned order, the State Commission has relied on the judgement of the National Commission in the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane in F.A. No.321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 in which the vehicle was stolen on 8.4.2000 and the matter was reported to the police on 10.4.2000, i.e., after two days of the incident and information to the Insurance Co. was given after about 9 days, i.e., on 17.4.2000 and even then the National Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground of delay in reporting the theft of the vehicle. In the present case, we find that the FIR with the police is recorded on 30.12.2006 and the intimation to the Insurance Co. was given on 31.12.2006. In the circumstances, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission which is in line with the later decision of this Commission in Trilochan Janes case (Supra) where the delay in reporting the theft was held to be crucial in the matter of violation of terms and conditions of the policy based on which the claim of the complainant was non-suited. So far as the two cases relied upon by the learned counsel are concerned, we find that the facts and circumstances of the case of Sanjay Shivhare were different and hence the decision of the three Member Bench in that case would not get attracted to the present case. So far as the ratio of the second case of Parvesh Chander Chadha is concerned, this case was decided on 28.8.2008 by a Two Member bench of this Commission wherein in spite of the delay, the order of the District Forum, as upheld by the State Commission, directing the claim to be settled on non-standard basis as 75% was upheld. However, in the case of Trilochan Jane (Supra), this Commission has taken a different view in similar circumstances relying on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal [JT (2004) 8 SC 8]. In this later judgement in the case of Trilochan Jane, this Commission in line with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court has held that the terms of policy have to be considered as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted from the same. It was held that the policy provides that in the case of theft, the matter should be reported Immediately. In the context of a theft of the car, word Immediately has to be construed strictly to make the Insurance Co. liable to pay the compensation. We are of the considered view that looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the State Commission rightly applied the ratio of later judgement in the case of Trilochan Jane while non-suiting the claim of the petitioner. We, therefore, do not find any ground which would justify our interference with the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
..Sd/-...
(K.S. CHAUDHARI, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .Sd/-
(SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER SS/