State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sh. Ashish Kumar Kalra on 11 March, 2019
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND,
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 90 / 2011
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Branch Office, Roorkee, District Haridwar
Through Regional Office
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Gulfam House, 8/6-7, Astley Hall, Dehradun
.......Appellant / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Ashish Kumar Kalra S/o Sh. Amrit Lal
R/o House No. 7, Bilkeshwar Colony, Haridwar
.......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. M.K. Kohli, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Mr. Balveer Prasad, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 11/03/2019
ORDER
(Per: Mr. Balveer Prasad, Judicial Member):
The appeal has been set in motion by the insurer against the Judgment passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (herein-after to be referred as 'The District Forum') in consumer complaint No. 20 of 2011: Sh. Ashish Kumar Kalra vs. Manager, NIACL on 19.04.2011, whereby the insurance company was ordered to pay within one month, sum insured to the tune of Rs.4,32,005/- (alongwith damages Rs. Three Thousand only) to the complainant, failing which the aforesaid sum of money shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the case till payment.2
2. The facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that Sh. Ashish Kumar Kalra filed complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar with the averments that he purchased a Tata Indigo Car on 27.04.2009 from I.S. Motors (P) Ltd., Haridwar for Rs.4,43,450/- and the matter was under process for registration. The car was insured with The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for the period: 27.04.2009 to 26.04.2010 at IDV of Rs.4,32,155/-. During currency of the policy of insurance, the vehicle was stolen on 16.05.2009 from the parking place nearby the premises of the complainant. An FIR was lodged immediately and the intimation was also given to the insurance company. The Insurance Company did not prefer to settle the claim, therefore, the complaint was instituted, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company.
3. By way of written statement, it was pleaded that the intimation of the alleged theft was given to the Insurance Company on 04.11.2009, whereas the alleged incident of theft took place in the intervening night of 16th & 17th May, 2009. In this way, the intimation was furnished after 170 days of the occurrence. It was also averred that the claim was investigated by the company and it was found that the claim of the complainant may be settled on Non-Standard Basis @75% for the reason that the vehicle was not got registered by that time, in the name of the complainant. The intimation of such settlement was furnished to the complainant, vide letter dated 15.10.2010.
4. The District Forum on consideration of the material on record allowed the complaint, in the terms mentioned in the Judgment. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up, projecting the appeal mainly on the grounds that the District Forum has over-looked the fact 3 that there was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy at the end of the complainant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant / respondent was not the registered owner of the vehicle at the time, when the alleged incident of theft took place. It was also emphasized that as per terms and conditions of the contract, the insured was legal obligation to intimate the company immediately after the alleged theft. Prayed for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the District Forum has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at the just conclusions and thus, prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
7. On having considered the submissions and going through the record, it is crystal clear that the complainant purchased Tata Indigo Car on 27.04.2009 and it was duly insured from 27.04.2009 to 26.04.2010 at IDV of Rs.4,32,155/-. Copy of the FIR is on record, the perusal thereof reveals that the vehicle was lying locked outside the house of the complainant & in the intervening night of 16th & 17th May, 2009, it was stolen. The record also spells out that the matter was investigated by the Police and final report was submitted.
8. Sh. Ashish Kumar Kalra furnished affidavit in support of the pleadings narrated in the complaint. Sh. Pitamber Bamsia, Senior Divisional Manager stated on oath, all what is worded in the written statement. The deponent has stated that since the vehicle was not registered in the RTO office, the claim may be payable on the compromise basis up to 75% of the claim amount, i.e. Rs.3,24,116/-, subject to deduction of Rs.500/- as compulsory excess clause, thereby 4 the net amount payable is Rs.3,23,616/- only. The affidavit also discloses that the insurance company is still willing and ready to settle the insured claim on compromise basis up to 75% of the claim amount. It is worth to place on record that the complainant furnished no rejoinder affidavit, in order to rebut the evidence furnished by the Senior Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company, meaning thereby the facts deposed stand admitted in law, to the complainant.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the law laid down in
a) Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.: II (2012) CPJ 189 (NC); b) Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.: IV (2014) CPJ 11 (SC), c) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vidya Bai: I (2015) CPJ 384 (NC), d) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Vikram Kanda: I (2017) CPJ 386 (NC); e) Shree Ambika Knitting Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.: II (2018) CPJ 120 (NC), f) Gurlal Singh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.: II (2016) CPJ 448 (NC), g) Bharat Construction vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.: I (2019) CPJ 340 (NC) and h) Dalbir Singh vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Anr.: I (2019) CPJ 259 (NC).
All these rulings are the authority for the proposition that when the vehicle is plied on the road without registration, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount.
10. It is worth to depict that in the present case the vehicle was lying in stationary condition, just outside of the house of the complainant and the incident of theft took place. As such, we find that these rulings are not of any help for the appellant. The evidence furnished by the parties establishes that the case is based on truth.
5And moreover, the Insurance Company is estopped from denying the admissions, made in the written statement.
11. Keeping in view the contents of the affidavit furnished on behalf of the Insurance Company, we find that the settlement of the claim on Non-Standard Basis, up to 75% of the claim amount is justified in law. In Dharmendra Goel vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC), Hon'ble the Apex Court postulated that "Courts must take realistic view and compensation, if possible on the material on record, should not be denied on hyper-technical pleas."
12. In National Insurance Company vs. Nitin Khandelwal; IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India postulated that in case of theft it is proper to settle the claim on Non-Standard Basis and thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court held the complainant entitled to 75% of the claim under insurance.
13. Keeping in view the facts in hand and law on the point, we come across with the finding that the settlement of the claim in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Nitin Khandelwal (supra) is perfectly justified in the given circumstances.
14. Accordingly, the consumer complaint stands allowed for the recovery of the amount Rs.3,23,616/- only, instead of Rs.4,32,005/-. The order passed by the District Forum is modified accordingly. Rest part of the Judgment requires no interference. As such, the appeal is allowed in part, with no order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (BALVEER PRASAD