State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Orient Insurance Company Limited vs Kanwardeep Singh on 21 December, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
2nd Bench
FIRST APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2010
Date of Institution: 19.01.2010
Date of Decision: 21.12.2012
Orient Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Dhuri Road,
Sangrur through its Chief Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No. 109-111, Surendera Building, Sector-
17, Chandigarh.
.....Appellant
VERSUS
Kanwardeep Singh son of Shri Ajmer Singh, resident of village Badbar,
Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
.....Respondent
First Appeal under Section 15 of
the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 against the order dated
9.12.2009 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Sangrur.
Before:
Sh. Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member
Sh. B.S. Sekhon, Member Present:
For the appellant : Sh. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for Ms. V.A. Talwar, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. G.S. Nahel, Advocate BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER This order will dispose of following two appeals which are directed against the same order dated 9.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter called as "District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No. 560 of 2009:-
1. First Appeal No. 65 of 2010-Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. V/s Kanwardeep Singh.
2. First Appeal No. 862 of 2010-Kanwardeep Singh V/s Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd.First Appeal No. 65 of 2010 Page 2 of 8
The facts have been taken from First Appeal No. 65 of 2010 and parties are being referred to as per their status in this appeal.
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant- respondent, Sh. Kanwardeep Singh (hereinafter called "the respondent") got his car bearing Registration No. PB-13-P-8678 insured from the appellant under policy No. 233502/31/2007/3012 for the period 20.2.2007 to 19.2.2008, after paying the premium of Rs. 13,204/-. At the time of insurance IDV of vehicle was declared as Rs. 6,00,000/- by the appellant and no terms and conditions were supplied to the respondent. It has been alleged by the respondent that on 18.11.2007, the car of the respondent was taken by his brother-in-law, Sh. Paramjeet Singh for domestic purpose and on the same day the said vehicle was stolen from outside the house of the said Paramjeet Singh by some unknown persons. Next day, when he came to know about the incident, the respondent immediately informed the Police Control Room, U.T. Chandigarh regarding theft, intimation of which was also given to the appellant company immediately and, thereafter, the claim was lodged. The respondent supplied all the relevant documents. The Police of P.S. Chandigarh after thorough investigation lodged FIR No. 15 dated 12.1.2008 under Section 379 IPC at P.S. Sector-36, Chandigarh in this regard. The respondent approached the appellant company to settle his claim but the appellant repudiated the claim vide letter dated 2.7.2009.
2. Alleging deficiency in service, the respondent filed the complaint seeking relief for directing the appellant to (a) pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft i.e. 18.11.2007 till realization (b) pay to First Appeal No. 65 of 2010 Page 3 of 8 the respondent a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and (c) pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, the appellant filed the written statement and denied that the terms and conditions were not supplied to the respondent. It was pleaded that the respondent never declared an IDV of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Other allegations were also denied. It was admitted that the FIR was lodged under Section 379 IPC but was pleaded that the FIR was got registered in connivance with the Police Officials. The claim of the respondent was repudiated vide letter dated 2.7.2009 on account of breach of policy condition and for not informing the Police in time, which made the chances of recovery of the vehicle "Nil". It was further pleaded that the matter was got investigated from an investigator who, after investigation, returned the findings that the time and place of the theft seems to be genuine but insured had not completed requisite formalities and that the Police was informed about the theft on 12.1.2008 and FIR was lodged on the same day where the Scorpio car of the respondent was stolen on 18.11.2007. The late information to the Police constitutes the breach of the policy condition. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, allowed the complaint of the respondent and directed the appellant to (a) pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of First Appeal No. 65 of 2010 Page 4 of 8 repudiation i.e. 2.7.2009 till realization and (b) pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.
6. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has come up in appeal.
7. The respondent also filed a separate cross appeal against the same impugned order in which enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Forum was sought.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has completely ignored the fact that the claim of the respondent was duly assessed and scrutinized by the appellant company strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the claim was repudiated on 2.7.2009 on the ground that the Police was not informed in time and, therefore, the claim was liable to be repudiated. It was further submitted that the theft took place on 18.11.2007, however, FIR was lodged on 12.1.2008 and in the FIR itself it is clearly mentioned that the information regarding the incident was given at the Police Station on 12.1.2008 itself and, therefore, by doing so the respondent took away the chances of the vehicle being recovered by the Police. It was further submitted that not only the Police was informed late but the insurance company was also informed late i.e. after lodging of FIR only. It was further submitted that on receipt of intimation, the appellant company deputed an investigator M/s Royal Associates, who in its report dated 18.12.2008 categorically observed that the claim was not payable since the intimation to Police as well as to the insurance company was not in time. As per condition No. 3 of the insurance policy, the respondent was liable to take all reasonable safeguards for the vehicle during the subsistence of the policy. The learned District Forum has heavily relied upon the First Appeal No. 65 of 2010 Page 5 of 8 untraceable report approved by the court of law. It was submitted that the untraced report was not in dispute, however, the respondent by not intimating the police and the appellant insurance company in time had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed.
10. Submissions have been considered. Record has been perused.
11. The admitted facts of the case are that Mahindra Scorpio Jeep of the respondent, bearing Registration No. PB-13-P-8678, was insured with the appellant insurance company for the period 20.2.2007 to 19.2.2008 and during the subsistence of the policy the car was stolen on 18.11.2007. An FIR No. 15 dated 12.1.2008 under Section 379 IPC at Police Station, Sector-36, Chandigarh was lodged in this regard. The claim filed by the respondent was repudiated by the appellant vide letter dated 2.7.2009 (Ex. C-3) on account of breach of policy condition and for not informing the Police in time, which made the chances of recovery of the vehicle "Nil". The respondent has placed on record the copy of the FIR as Ex. C-4, which reveals that the intimation regarding theft of the Scorpio No. PB-13-P-8678 was given to the Police Station, Sector-36, Chandigarh on 12.1.2008 for the first time. In the report, it is mentioned that the vehicle was stolen on 18.11.2007 from Chandigarh itself. But there is no information regarding any earlier intimation given to the Control Room or Police Station immediately after the theft of the vehicle as alleged by the respondent in his complaint. It is specified in the FIR by Sh. Paramjeet Singh that after the theft of the car, he had been trying to trace the vehicle at his own First Appeal No. 65 of 2010 Page 6 of 8 level till 12.1.2008. No reason for delay in lodging the FIR has been given. Even though the respondent has mentioned in his complaint that the brother-in-law of the respondent i.e. Paramjeet Singh informed the Control Room, Chandigarh on 19.11.2007 and said Paramjeet Singh has filed affidavit (Ex. C-2) to this effect but the facts mentioned in FIR belies this version. In the affidavit, Sh. Paaramjeet Singh has deposed that the Police after thorough investigation lodged the FIR on 12.1.2008 whereas no such reference to any earlier intimation given to PCR, has been made. Moreover, FIR is not based on any Police investigation or intimation given to PCR by Sh. Paramjeet Singh on 19.11.2007. As per statement of Sh. Paramjeet Singh in FIR, he informed the Police about theft on 12.1.2008 for the first time. It cannot be believed that a person, who lost his car, will remain silent for almost two months before lodging the report with the Police. No doubt the untraceable report has been approved by the court of law but the fact remains that the respondent has miserably failed to intimate the Police in time. No reason for such a long delay is mentioned which clearly indicates that the FIR was lodged in connivance with the Police only to grab the public money. Condition No. 1 of the terms and conditions of the policy provides as under:-
"1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident and in the event of any claim. Every letter, claim, writ, summons, and/or process 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 impleading prosecution inquest or Fatal Inquiry in respect First Appeal No. 65 of 2010 Page 7 of 8 of any accident which may give rise to a claim under this Policy."
12. It is, thus, crystal clear that the respondent by not intimating the insurance company in time violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The appellant has also appointed M/s. Royal Associates as investigator who vide its report dated 18.12.2008 has categorically observed that the claim was not payable since the intimation to the Police as well as to the insurance company was not made in time which constituted breach of terms and conditions of the policy.
13. In view of the above, it is held that the appellant company has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent vide letter dated 2.7.2009. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the impugned order under appeal of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint of the complainant-respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 19.1.2010 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 28.4.2010 as per the order of this Commission. Amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the District Forum. First Appeal No. 862 of 2010:-
15. For the reasons and findings recorded in First Appeal No. 65 of 2010 (Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. V/s Kanwardeep Singh), the First Appeal No. 862 of 2010 (Kanwardeep Singh V/s Oriental Insurance First Appeal No. 65 of 2010 Page 8 of 8 Com. Ltd.) is dismissed. Consequently the complaint filed by the complainant-appellant is dismissed.
16. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 18.12.2012 and the orders were reserved. Now, the orders be communicated to the parties.
17. The appeals could not be decided within statutory period because of the heavy pendency of court cases.
18. Copy of this order be placed in First Appeal No. 862 of 2010 (Kanwardeep Singh V/s Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd.).
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member December 21, 2012 VINAY