State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohammad Ahmad vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. on 5 December, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2017/537
Instituted on : 26.07.2017
Mohammad Ahmad S/o Nabi baksh,
Profession : Mechanic,
Permanent Address : Khursipar,
Present Address : Farid Nagar, Near Bhatha,
Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ..... Appellant (Complainant)
Vs.
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Commercial Complex, 30, Above Vijaya Bank
Nehru Nagar (East),
Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) .... Respondent (O.P.)
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Anurag Thaker, Advocate for the appellant (complainant).
Shri S. Pandya, Advocate for the respondent (O.P.)
ORDER
DATED : 5/December/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated1 25.04.2017, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No. C.C./2016/875. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case of the complainant are that the complainant is a mechanic by profession and for livelihood of his family he kept a Highwa Truck and a Taxi for operating them. The complainant purchased a vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-D-6355, chassis // 2 // No.M.A.T.44909193 P-13922 from Mohammad Nasir S/o Noor Mohammad, Resident of Kurud Road, Kohka, Bhilai. Mohammad Nasir had purchased the above vehicle from Kapil Garg S/o Krishna Garg, Resident of Raigarh on 22.11.2012. The complainant was residing at Farid Nagar, Opposite Sunder Nagar, Bhilai on rent and was parking his vehicles in night in the ground in front of his house, which is called Lal Maidan, Farid Nagar. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, Mohammad Nasir provided only one key of the vehicle and provided all documents to him. After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant got insured the vehicle from the O.P. (Insurance Company) under Goods Carrying Package Policy which was effective for the period from 06.01.2014 to 05.01.2015. The Insurance Company had taken responsibility under all heads and had obtained premium. On 18.12.2014, the complainant went to Allahabad and when at the night of 25.12.2014, he returned back to his house, he found that the vehicle was not there. The vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-D-6355 Tipper (Tata) was stolen from there. The complainant immediately went to Police Station, Supela, Bhilai for lodging First Information Report on 26.12.2014. The Officer Incharge of the Police Station, Supela, Bhiali told the complainant to firstly search the vehicle here and there and thereafter they will lodge offence. When the vehicle in question could not be traced then regular First Information No.5/2015 was registered in Police Station, Supela, Bhilai on 04.01.2015. The complainant asked the Insurance Agent, through which the vehicle was got insured, to give intimation to the office of the Insurance Company regarding theft of the vehicle and the Agent also immediately gave intimation to the Insurance Company immediately regarding theft of the // 3 // vehicle. The Police Station, Supela registered case on 04.01.2015 on Offence No.5/15. The Police Station, Supela gave information regarding Khatma Report to the complainant on 30.04.2015 and by submitting case diary submitted application for Khatma Report. On 30.04.2015, the Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered for Khatma of the Case No.5/15 under Section 379 I.P.C. The complainant gave intimation to the R.T.O. regarding the theft of the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-D-6355 and lodging complaint before Police Station, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg. The complainant submitted claim regarding theft of the vehicle along with relevant documents before the O.P. Insurance Company and the complainant also submitted the documents to the Insurance Company, which were demanded from time to time. The Insurance Company committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by not paying the claim amount to the complainant. The complainant is contacting the office of the Insurance Company from 30.12.2014. The complainant had also provided all relevant documents to the Investigator of the Insurance Company. The complainant obtained financial help from the Finance Company and the Finance Company is pressurised the complainant to pay the installments. The complainant sent legal notice to the O.P.. on 22/10/2016 which was duly served on the O.P. on 28.10.2016 but even then the O.P. did not give reply thereof and did not accept the claim of the complainant. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint and prayed for granting reliefs, as prayed in the relief clause of the complaint.
// 4 //
3. The O.P. filed its written statement and averred that the complainant left his vehicle Tata Tipper bearing registration No.C.G.13-#-6355 in an open place without any security, which is violation of Condition No.5 of the insurance policy. The vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 18.12.2013, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged in the Police Station, Supela oh 04.01.2015 i.e. after 17 days. The complainant gave intimation regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle on 30.12.2014, then the Insurance Company registered claim No.2141169669. Thus, the complainant gave intimation regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle to the O.P. after 12 days and submitted the claim for on 12.01.2015 in the office of the Insurance Company, which is violation of Condition No.1 of the insurance policy. The complainant deposited only one key of the vehicle in question along with the claim form, whereas he was required to deposit both the keys of the vehicle in question, it means that in the vehicle, one key was inserted. On 03.12.2015, the O.P. sent reminder -1 through registered post to the complainant demanded R.C. particulars, another key of the vehicle. Thereafter on 21.03.2016 and 03.08.2016, the O.P. again sent another letter demanding R.C. Particular and another key of the vehicle, but the complainant did not deposit the second key of the vehicle and other documents before the Insurance Company, therefore the claim of the complainant was closed. Thus, the O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service. The vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13--6355 was insured by the Insurance Company under Goods Carrying Package Policy, for the period from 06.01.2014 to 05.01.2015 in the name of Mohammad Ahmad under terms and conditions of the insurance // 5 // policy. The Policy No. is 2314542334000010. The Insurance Company is settling the claim under terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
4. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure A-1 is registered Notice dated 22.10.2016 sent by Smt. Seema Sharma, Advocate on behalf of the complainant to the O.P., Annexure A-2 is acknowledgement, Annexure A-3 is First Information Report, Annexure A-4 is order dated 30.04.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg in C.A. No.3893/15, Annexure A-5 is letter dated 03.04.2015 sent by Officer Incharge, Police Station, Supela, District Durg (C.G.) to the complainant, Annexure A-6 is Reliance Goods Carrying Vehicle Package Policy Certificate Cum Policy Schedule, Annexure A-7 is intimation given by the complainant to the D.T.O. Raigarh regarding theft of the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-D=6355 (Truck), Annexure A-8 is letter sent by the complainant to Manager, Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. ltd. Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), Annexure A-9 is Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-D-6355, Annexure A-10 is Certificate of Fitness of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-D-6355, Annexure A-11 is permit for goods vehicle, Annexure A- 12 is driving licence of Kaushal Prasad Yadav, Annexure A-13 is driving licence of the complainant, Annexure A-14 is railway ticket, Annexure A-15 is Electronic Reservation Slip (personal user), Annexure A-16 is reminder - 2 dated 21.03.2016 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, Annexure A-17 is Final Closure Letter dated 03.08.2016 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, Annexure A-18 is Letter of Subrogation, Annexure A-19 is Letter of Indemnity.
// 6 //
5. The O.P. has also filed documents. Annexure NA-1 is Reliance Goods Carrying Vehicle Package Policy Certificate Cum policy, Annexure NA-2 is policy wordings for Reliance Commercial Vehicles Package Policy, Annexure NA-3 is Final Closure letter dated 03.08.2016 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, Annexure NA-4 is letter dated 02.05.2016 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, Annexure NA-5 is letter dated 21.03.2016 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, Annexure NA-6 is letter dated 03.12.2016 sent by the O.P. to the complainant.
6. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.
7. In the instant case, the appellant (complainant) has filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and sought permission to file copy of application dated 24.05.2017 submitted under Right To Information Act, receipt dated 31.05.2017, reply dated 28.05.2017 submitted in respect of application submitted under Right to Information Act, photocopy of point register dated 26.12.2014.
8. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties on the application filed by the appellant (complainant) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and have also perused the documents sought to be filed by the appellant (complainant) at the appellate stage as evidence. Looking the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the above documents, are essential for proper adjudication of the case. As the appellant (complainant) has not filed the above documents before the District Forum and has filed the same // 7 // for the first time before this Commission, therefore, it appears proper to allow the application subject to payment of some cost.
9. Therefore, the application filed by the appellant (complainant) is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) and the above documents are taken on record as additional documents at appellate stage.
10. Shri Anurag Thaker, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has argued that the appellant (complainant) is registered owner of vehicle Tata Tipper bearing registration No.C.G.13-D-6355 and it was insured with the respondent (O.P.) for the period from 06.01.2014 to 05.01.2015. The appellant (complainant) was always parking the vehicle in night in the ground in front of his house, which is called Lal Maidan, Farid Nagar. On 18.12.2014, the appellant (complainant) parked the vehicle in question in the ground in front of his house, which is called Lal Maidan, Farid Nagar and had gone to Allahabad and when he return back on 25.12.2014 he found that the vehicle was not present in front of his house and some unknown person had stolen the vehicle. The appellant (complainant) had gone to Police Station, Supela for lodging First Information Report, but the Police told the complainant to search the vehicle here and there. On being instruction given by the Police, the appellant (complainant) searched the vehicle here and there. The First Information Report was lodged on 04 04.01.2015. The intimation regarding incident of theft of the vehicle in question. The appellant (complainant) submitted claim before the respondent (O.P.), but the respondent (O.P.) repudiated the claim // 8 // of the appellant (complainant) on erroneous ground. The District Forum also did not consider the above facts and dismissed the complaint holding that the First Information Report was lodged belatedly, whereas the appellant (complainant) gave proper explanation for delay caused, even then the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum, which is erroneous and contrary to law, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) may be allowed and impugned order passed by the District Forum be set aside. The reliefs as prayed by the appellant (complainant) in the relief clause of the complaint be granted in his favour.
11. Shri S. Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.P.) has argued that the vehicle in question was left unattended by the appellant (complainant). The incident took place on 18.12.2014, whereas the First Information Report was lodged in concerned Police Station, Supela, Bhilai on 01.01.2015 i.e. after 17 days and intimation regarding the incident of theft of given to the respondent (O.P.) on 30.12.2014 i.e. after 12 days. The second key of the vehicle in question was not produced by the appellant (complainant) before the respondent (O.P.). The appellant (complainant) breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the respondent (O.P.) had rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant). The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality. The appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) is liable to be dismissed.
// 9 //
12. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum, as well as the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
13. It is admitted fact that the appellant (complainant) is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-D-6355, which was insured with the respondent (O.P.) for the period from 06.01.2014 to 05.01.2015. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle is Rs.14,50,000/-. According to the appellant (complainant), on 18.12.2014 he parked the vehicle in question in the ground in front of his house, which is called Lal Maidan, Farid Nagar and had gone to Allahabad. On 25.12.2014, he returned back from Allahabad, he found that the vehicle was not present there. According to the appellant (complainant) he was always parking the vehicle in question in front of his house, which is called Lal Maidan, Farid Nagar. The appellant (complainant) went to Police Station, Supela, Bhilai, on 26.12.2014, then the police told him to firstly search the vehicle here and there.
14. The appellant (complainant) filed documents Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-4 at the appellate stage. The appellant (complainant) submitted application and sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 vide Annexure A-1 from Public Information Officer, Police Station, Supela, Bhilai. On the basis of above application, vide Annexure A-3, the Police Station, Supela, Bhilai gave information to the appellant (complainant), in which it is mentioned that Tata Highwa vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-6355 Dumper, which was stolen during the period from 18.12.2014 to 25.12.2014. The appellant (complainant) went to the Police Station on // 10 // 26.12.2014 for giving information regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle. Document Annexure A- is copy of wireless message dated 26.12.2014. According to the appellant (complainant) on 18.12.2014, he parked the vehicle in question in the ground which is situated in front of his house and he had gone to Allahabad and when he returned back on 25.12.2014, he found that the vehicle was stolen by unknown person. Then he went to Police Station, Supela, Bhilai on 26.12.2014. It appears that the when the appellant (complainant) came to know about the incident of theft of the vehicle, he immediately rushed to the Police Station, Supela, Bhilai on 26.12.2014 for giving intimation regarding incident of theft of the vehicle.
15. This Commission in Appeal No.FA/2014/459 - Pushpendra Pillewar Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, vide order dated 27.03.2015, on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), judgments of Hon'ble National Commission in Baljeet Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (2014) 1 CPR 61 (NC), National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamal Singha, IV (2010) CPJ 297 (NC), has awarded compensation to the complainant on non-standard basis. The O.P. No.1 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., filed Revision Petition No.1616 of 2015 before Hon'ble National Commission against the order dated 27.03.2015 of this Commission. Vide order dated 04.10.2017, Hon'ble National Commission allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the order passed by this Commission, observing thus :-
// 11 // "12. On the face of it, if there was a theft, there ought to be compensation by way of an insurance claim. It is this perspective that has apparently informed the decision of the State Commission, who have relied upon some judgments of the Apex Court as also this Commission to hold that in case of theft, breach of conditions of the insurance policy is not germane and denial of claim in toto is not sustainable."
16. In para 14 of the Order dated 04.10.2017, Hon'ble National Commission on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6739 / 2010 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, decided on 17.08.2010, allowed the Revision Petition filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and dismissed the complaint of the complainant - Pushpendra Pillewar.
17. In Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :
"12. Reference in this case may be made to the decision of National Commission rendered in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Gian Singh, reported in II (2006) CPJ 83 (NC) = 2006 CTJ 221 (CP) ((NCDRC). In that decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) it has been held that in a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non-standard basis.
The said decision of the National Commission has been referred to by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Nitin Khandelwal, reported in IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) = // 12 // 2008 (7) SCALE 351. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, in the case of Nitin Khandelwal (supra) this Court held :
"...... The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non- standard basis."
14. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak, reported in II (2006) CPJ 144 (NC). In that case also the question was, whether the insurance company can repudiate the claims in a case where the vehicle carrying passengers and the driver did not have a proper driving licence and met with an accident. While granting claim on non-standard basis the National Commission set out in its judgment the guidelines issued by the insurance company about settling all such non- standard claims. The said guidelines are set out below :-
Sr. Description Percentage of settlement
No.
(i) Under declaration of Deduct 3 years' difference in premium
licenced capacity. from the amount of claim or deduct 25%
of claim amount, whatever is higher.
Pay claims not exceeding 75% of
(ii) Overloading of vehicles admissible claim.
beyond licensed carrying
capacity.
Pay upto 75% of admissible claim.
(iii) Any other breach of
warranty/ condition of
policy including
limitation as to use.
// 13 //
18. In Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. IV (2017) CPJ 10 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"11. It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act, aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the act.
12. In the instant case, the appellant has given cogent reasons for the delay of 8 days in informing the respondent about the incident. The Investigator had verified the theft to be genuine and the payment of Rs.7,85,000/- towards the claim was approved by the Corporate Claims Manager, which, in our opinion, is just and proper. The National Commission, therefore, is not justified in rejecting the claim of appellant without considering the explanation for the delay. We are also of the view that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation."
19. In the instant case, the respondent (O.P.) has pleaded that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged by the appellant (complainant) on 04.01.2015 i.e. after 17 days and intimation regarding the incident of theft of // 14 // the vehicle was given to the respondent (O.P.) on 30.12.2014 . In the instant case the appellant (complainant) had given proper explanation for lodging First Information Report belatedly. Looking to the documents filed by the appellant (complainant), it appears that the appellant (complainant) had gone to Police Station, Supela, Bhilai on 26.12.2014 and gave information regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle. On the basis of document Annexure A/4 filed at the appellate stage, which is copy of Wireless Message Register, it appears the Police Station, Supela, Bhilai, sent message to another Police Station through wireless. It appears that the incident of theft of the vehicle was reported to the police immediately and the vehicle in question was searched by the Police and appellant (complainant). When the vehicle could not be traced, then regular First Information Report was registered on 04.01.2015 by Police Station, Supela, Bhilai. Looking to the facts and circumstances, it appears that the appellant (complainant) has properly explained the delay caused in lodging First Information Report, therefore, on the basis of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. (Supra), Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. and National Insurance Company v. Nitin Khandelwal (Supra), the appellant (complainant) is entitled to get compensation on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle Rs.14,50,000/.
20. In the instant case, the appellant (complainant) has filed copy of the insurance policy. In the insurance policy, the Total Insured Declared Value of the vehicle in question is mentioned as Rs.14,50,000/-. The vehicle in // 15 // question was insured with the respondent (O.P.) from 06.01.2014 to 05.01.2015. The appellant (complainant) is entitled to get compensation from the respondent (O.P.) on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of Rs.14,50,000/- which comes out to Rs.10,87,500/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred).
21. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant (complainant), is allowed and impugned order dated 25.04.2017, passed by the District Forum, is set aside and it is directed that :-
(i) The respondent (O.P.) will pay a sum of Rs.10,87,500/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred) to the appellant (complainant) within a period of 45 days from the date of this order.
(ii) If the aforesaid amount is not paid by the respondent (O.P.) to the appellant (complainant) within the stipulated period, then the respondent (O.P.) will also liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from the date of this order till realization.
(iii) No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
05/12/2017 05 /12/2017 05 /12/2017