National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Narender Singh vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 1 December, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2110 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 23/04/2015 in Appeal No. 631/2014 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. NARENDER SINGH S/O SH. RAM SINGH
7-S NEW SAKET COLONY HISAR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT HISAR HARYANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH MANAGER, MICRO OFFICE, RAILWAY ROAD, SIWANI BHIWANI HARYANA 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF REGIONAL OFFICE, SCO NO. 123-124, SECTOR 17-B, CHANDIGARH 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGD. & HEAD OFFICE AT: 24, WHITE ROAD, CHENNAI ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Nanda, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 01 Dec 2015 ORDER
Arguments heard.
Order after lunch.
ORDER
(After Lunch) PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER In this Revision Petition filed U/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act'), Petitioner / Complainant has challenged impugned order dated 23.04.2015, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 1631/2014, vide which appeal filed by Respondents / Opposite Parties was allowed.
2. Petitioner in his complaint filed before District Forum Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani, (in short, 'District Forum') has alleged, that he is owner of Fiat Car bearing No. HR-26T/4538 which is insured with respondents for the period 31.12.2006 to 29.12.2007. The said vehicle was stolen from Ambala on 25.09.2007. Thereafter, petitioner visited Police Station Sadar, Ambala, for lodging report, but police instead of lodging the report asked the petitioner to search out the vehicle on his own. However, vehicle was not traced out. Thereafter, DD No. 19 dated 08.10.2007 was recorded by the police. On receipt of the final report from the police, petitioner approached respondents for claim of his vehicle and submitted all the requisite documents. However, respondents vide letter dated 25.03.2008, repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground, that claim is not maintainable. Therefore, alleging deficiency on the part of respondent, petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- being the value of insured amount alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- against deficiency in service etc.
3. In the written statement, respondents have taken the plea, that police was informed after fourteen days of the incident, whereas respondents were informed on 25.10.2007, that is, 30 days, after the incident. No theft has taken place on 25.09.2007, as alleged by the petitioner. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of respondents. The claim was rightly repudiated.
4. District Forum vide order dated 19.06.2014, allowed the complaint and directed respondents to pay the insured amount alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of repudiation till realization. Petitioner was also awarded Rs. 2,200/- as litigation charges.
5. Being aggrieved, respondents filed appeal before the State Commission which allowed the same, vide impugned order and dismissed the complant.
6. Hence, this Revision petition.
7. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
8. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel, that there is a specific circular issued by IRDA stating, that technicalities should not come in the way while clearing the claim. Though, there was delay in informing the police as well as the insurance company but in view of the above circular, petitioner is entitled for 75% of the claim amount on non-standard basis. In support, Ld. Counsel, has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, (IV) (2008) CPJ 1 (SC).
8. Petitioner has not placed on record the complete conditions attached to the insurance policy. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that police report was lodged by the petitioner only after 15 days of the theft. Moreover, insurance company was informed about the theft, after about one month.
9. The State Commission in its order has observed;
"9. Further as per complainant theft took place on 25.09.2007 but he informed O.Ps on 25.10.2007 i.e. after 30 days. As per terms and conditions, the complainant was supposed to inform immediately. Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission have opined about 'immediately' and when the matter should be reported to the insurance company. Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/S Harcharan Rai Chandan Lal, JT 2004 (8) SC 8 that word 'immediately' means the information is to be given to them without any loss of time. Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the word 'immediately' giving reference of so many dictionaries. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also opined in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Harcharan Rai CHandan Lal, (supra) that terms of policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or substracted from the same. Hon'ble National Commission also opined in NIA Vs. Trilochan Jane, first appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2009, Satpal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 518 2013 (3) that if there is inordinate delay in giving information to the company without any explanation, the claim can be repudiated by the company. In Satpal case (supra) there was 30 days delay in information given to the insurance company and in the present case also there is delay of 30 days. Complainant has not placed any evidence on the file showing that he ever approached insurance company before one month. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that he was not entitled for compensation and the insurance company rightly repudiated his claim. When the theft is doubtful the complainant cannot ask to give compensation in 75% because as per instructions issued by IRDA, if the incident is genuine only then 75% of compensation can be granted. The District Forum passed the impugned order by ignoring all these aspects and same cannot be sustained."
10. This Commission, in Trilochan Jagne (Supra) has held;
"9. In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the Police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the Police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the Policy as it deprives the insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle."
11. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8 has held that:
"the terms of Policy have to be construed as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted from the same. 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 company liable to pay the compensation."
12. Therefore, applying ratio of above noted case, we are of the view that State Commission was fully justified in dismissing the complaint. Hence in our view, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error which warrants interference of this commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition accordingly stands dismissed.
13. No order as to cost.
......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... PREM NARAIN MEMBER