National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt. Praveen Dalal vs Oriental Insurance Company on 4 February, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4172 OF 2011 (From the order dated 30.08.2011 in Appeal No. 1156/2011 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Smt. Praveen Dalal w/o Sh. Ajay Dalal r/o H. No. 1350, Sector 6, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar Presently residing at 3545, Nt. Mountain View San Bernadino California 92405 USA Through:- Dr. Samunder Singh Lather, s/o Late Sh. Zile Singh r/o Deep Farms, IOC Road V.P.O. Brijwasan, Delhi - 110061 Petitioner versus 1. Oriental Insurance Company Jawahar Market Model Town Rohtak, Through its Branch Manager 2. Office Incharge, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 3. Industrial Bank Limited Subhash Complex Opp. ADC Office, Civil Road, Rohtak, through its Manager Respondents
BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) Mr. K.P.S. Rao, Advocate Alongwith Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate For Respondent 1 & 2 Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate For Respondent 3 NEMO PRONOUNCED ON : 4TH FEBRUARY 2014 O R D E R PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Praveen Dalal, who is also the original complainant in this case. The three respondents in this revision petition were opposite parties no. 1, 2 & 3 before the District Forum. The parties, therefore, have been referred to according to their status before the District Forum.
2. Briefly stated the complainant got her truck bearing registration no. HR-63-A-2965 insured with the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 for the period from 18.10.2006 to 17.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.12 lakh. As per the averments, this truck was stolen by some unknown person in the intervening night of 14th and 15th April 2007. The matter was reported with the Police Station under F.I.R. No. 104 dated 15.04.2007 but insurance company was informed after a period of more than 17 days. When the complainant submitted her claim before the OP Insurance Company the same was repudiated vide letter dated 28.08.2008 which led the complainant/petitioner to file the complaint in question. On notice, the OP Insurance Company filed written statement and took the plea that while the vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 14 / 15.04.2007, intimation to the Insurance Company was given in this regard after a period of more than 17 days and as such the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the Policy. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, the Insurance Company pleaded for dismissal of the complaint. Both the parties led evidence in support of their stands before the District Forum.
Keeping in view the evidence adduced by the parties and the submissions made during the course of hearing, the District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 21.06.2011 in complaint no. 523/2008. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Rederssal Commission (for short the State Commission), which vide its impugned order dated 30.08.2011 in FA No. 1156/2011 upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal of the complainant. It is against this order of the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3. We have heard arguments of Shri K.P.S. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no. 1 & 2. None has appeared for respondent no. 3, i.e., the Bank which had financed the purchase of the truck.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is arbitrary and unjust and has been passed without appreciating the vital issues raised by the petitioner and as such it deserves to be set aside. He submitted that the State Commission did not give an opportunity to the complainant/petitioner to explain her case and arbitrarily dismissed her appeal at the stage of admission itself, thereby violating the rule of natural justice. More specifically, learned counsel contended that the Fora below failed to appreciate the fact that intimation to the Police was given on 16.04.2007 itself and the same is evident from the complaint dated 16.04.2007 lodged with the local Police Station. He submitted that this aspect was not considered by the Fora below which arbitrarily discarded the evidentiary value of the application in question filed with the Police Station while rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay in intimation and registration of the FIR. He submitted that it was also wrong on the part of the Fora below to conclude that there was delay in intimation of the theft to the OP Insurance Company because the petitioner had informed the Insurance Company soon after the incident.
Supporting his argument, learned counsel said that the OP Insurance Company had appointed the surveyor soon after the incident and if the petitioner had earlier not informed the Company about the theft, as has been concluded by the Fora below how could the Insurance Company take the action regarding appointment of the surveyor so early after the incident. Regarding the lodging of formal FIR, learned counsel contended that even though the formal FIR bearing no. 104 was registered by the local Police Station on 02.05.2007, Exhibit P-3 which is a copy of application given to the Police Authorities on 16.04.2007 was filed before the District Forum and it clearly establishes and proves that intimation to the Police had been given immediately after the incident of theft of the vehicle.
He, therefore, submitted that it was a grave mistake on the part of Fora below to have ignored the documentary evidence which would establish beyond doubt that there was no delay either in reporting the incident to the Police Station or to the Insurance Company and as such rejection of her claim on the ground of delay is not at all justified.
He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned orders of the Fora below be set aside and the revision petition be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company supported the impugned orders passed by the Fora below and submitted that same are based on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties and rejection of the claim and dismissal of the complaint are perfectly in order.
6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the record.
The short point which has arisen for decision in this case is as to whether there was delay in reporting the incident to the Police and the Insurance Company and if so whether the Fora below were justified in non-suiting the claim of the complainant on the basis of the delay in question.
7. As regards the delay in informing the Police and the Insurance Company, the Fora below have returned the concurrent finding of fact based on the evidence adduced by the parties. The District Forum has duly considered the documents produced by the petitioner/complainant in this regard. This is duly reflected in the following observations of the District Forum in its order:-
In order to prove their case the complainant has relied upon Ex.P3 an application allegedly moved on 16.04.07 to SHO, P.S. Sampla regarding intimation of theft on 15.04.2007. The minute perusal of application Ex.P3 reveals that the said application is merely a photocopy and it cannot observed as to who has received the said application at P.S. Sampla. The application also does not bear the stamp of the relevant police station, the name, designation of the police official, who have allegedly received the application is also not mentioned or visible on the application in order to prove that the said application has been moved to the concerned P.S. at any time. Coupled with this fact it is also observed that the filing of any such application such Ex.P3 with the P.S. Sampla on 16.04.07 has not been mentioned or reflected in FIR Ex.P4.
It is also observed that Chassis number and engine number of the vehicle has not been mentioned in the application Ex.P3 and FIR Ex.P4. Similarly, Ex. R6, the statement of driver Ranbir Singh also nowhere depicts the fact of moving any application to the police authorities such as Ex.P3. The Chassis No. and Engine No. has also not been reflected in untraced report Ex.P5. Under these circumstances it is not proved that the complainant has intimated the police regarding the incident on 16.04.2007 vide Ex.P3 which is not reliable document as discussed above. As such it stands proved that the complainant has not intimated the police authorities of occurrence on 15.04.07 at 4:30 A.M. immediately but has informed the police only on 02.05.2007 after an unexplained delay of 17 days. It is also proved that complainant has not informed the respondent company immediately as there is no evidence to this effect.
8. The State Commission has upheld the finding returned by the District Forum in this regard.
9. We have also called for the record of the Fora below and perused the documents referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find any reason to differ with the finding of the District Forum and the State Commission.
The assumption drawn by learned counsel about the immediate appointment of the surveyor by the Insurance Company following and based on the alleged intimation of the incident by the petitioner to the Insurance Company is not supported by the facts on record. Copy of the surveyors report dated 24.03.2008 filed by the petitioner along with the revision petition indicates on the top of the report that the surveyor was deputed on 5.07.2007 which is more than 2 months after the date of incident of theft. The petitioner has not produced any other document to support the plea taken by learned counsel to make us believe that the petitioner had informed the Insurance Company about the incident immediately after occurrence of the theft. In the circumstances, we are convinced that the concurrent finding returned by the Fora below regarding the delay in intimating the Insurance Company and lodging the FIR is correct. This being the factual position, no fault could be found with the impugned orders non-suiting the claim of the petitioner and dismissing her complaint because the impugned orders are in line with the view taken by this Commission and the Apex Court that immediate intimation to the Police and filing of FIR as also the intimation to the Insurance Company are of paramount importance in the theft cases and any delay in this respect will have serious adverse effect on the interest of the Insurance Company. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Fora below.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with the direction that the parties will bear their own costs.
..Sd/-..
(AJIT BHARIHOKE J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ....Sd/-
(SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER RS/