National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs Rahul Kadian on 1 February, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1680 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 21/01/2016 in Appeal No. 1116/2015 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT JAWAHAR MARKET,OPPOSITE D PARK DELHI ROAD, ROHTAK HARYANA 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE AT 8TH FLOOR, KANCHANJUNGA BUILDING, 18 BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAHUL KADIAN S/O. SH. KAPOOR SINGH, R/O. HOUSE NO. 2202/12, KAMAL COLONY, ROHTAK HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate For the Respondent : ex parte
Dated : 01 Feb 2018 ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/OPs, United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another against the order dated 21.1.2016 passed in First Appeal No.1116/2015 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (For short, 'State Commission' ) wherein the appeal filed by the petitioners herein has been dismissed and the order of the District Forum dated 23.11.2015 has been upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 8.9.2010 Shri Rahul Kadian, the complainant/respondent herein, obtained a Private Car Package Policy bearing No.111281/31/10/01/0002786 in respect of his Opel Astra car bearing registration No.HR 25M 9461 for the period from 8.9.2010 to 7.9.2011. The aforesaid vehicle was reported to have been stolen on 4.5.2011 from PGIMS, Rohtak. An FIR No.208 was lodged with the Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak under Section 379 IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that on 20.5.2011 the complainant gave intimation of theft of insured vehicle to the petitioner/insurance company after 16 days of the reported theft. The petitioner therefore, repudiated the claim of the complainant/respondent for the following reasons:
1) There was delay of 16 days in intimation of theft of the vehicle to the petitioner/ insurance company and thus violation of condition No.1 of the policy.
2) The complainant/respondent had failed to take minimum reasonable safeguard of the vehicle from loss and there was breach of condition no.3 of policy.
3. On 13.1.2012 the complainant/respondent filed a consumer complaint no.39/2012 before the District Consumer Forum, Rohtak against the repudiation of the claim by the petitioner/insurance company and claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum as also an amount of Rs.80,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment, economical loss due to non availability of car and further Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses and misc. charges. The said complaint case was contested by the petitioner/insurance company by filing the written statement whereby it justified the repudiation of the claim and denied its liability to pay any compensation to the complainant/respondent. The District Forum, Rohtak vide its order dated 23.11.2015 allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent and directed the petitioner/insurance company to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till realization and Rs.2,500/- towards litigation expenses within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant for transfer of the vehicle, failing which OP/petitioner insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment dated 23.11.2015, the petitioner/insurance company filed an Appeal bearing No. FA No.1116/2015 before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/insurance company vide impugned order dated 21.1.2016 and upheld the order of the District Forum.
4. Hence, the revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The respondent was proceeded ex parte as he did not appear even after service of notice.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the intimation of theft was given to the insurance company after 16 days from the actual date of theft, whereas in case of theft the immediate information should have been given to the insurance company so that investigator chould have been appointed and the vehicle could have been searched in association with the police. Though the FIR was lodged, but no intimation was given to the insurance company. This is a clear violation of condition no.1 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Similarly, the vehicle was not parked at an authorized parking and therefore, it is apparent that the complainant has not taken due care and precaution for safeguarding the vehicle. Thus, condition no.3 is also violated. Based on the violation of these two conditions, the claim was repudiated. However, both the fora below have allowed the claim without considering the question of violation of these conditions.
7. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. This is a case where both the fora below have given concurrent findings. In such cases, the scope under the revision petition is very limited as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 ; wherein following has been held:
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."
8. Moreover, it is also seen that the State Commission has considered a Circular No.IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated September 20, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA). The relevant portion of the same reads as under:
"The insurers' decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. It may be noted that such limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute. One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policyholders losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigation.
Therefore, it is advised that all insurers need to develop a sound mechanism of their own to handle such claims with utmost care and caution. It is also advised that the insurers must not repudiate such claims unless and until the reasons of delay are specifically ascertained, recorded and the insurers should satisfy themselves that the delayed claims would have otherwise been rejected even if reported in time."
9. From the guidelines of the IRDA, it is clear that genuine claims are not to be repudiated on the basis of delay in intimation to the insurance company. In the instant case the specific condition in case of theft that police must be immediately informed, has been complied with and therefore the veracity of the incident cannot be questioned. Thus, the claim seems to be a genuine claim and therefore the above mentioned IRDA Circular seems to be applicable in the instant case.
10. Based on the above reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the State Commission and accordingly, the Revision Petition No.1680 of 2016 is dismissed.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER