State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, vs Azad Singh, on 31 January, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 31-01-2008 Appeal No.A-1015/2004 (Arising from order dated 02-11-2004 passed by District Forum(East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in complaint Case No.203/2004) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Appellant A-159, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Through Delhi-110092. Mr. L.R. Goyal, Advocate. Versus Shri Azad Singh, Respondent F-38, Laxmi Park, Through Nangloi, Mr. Ajit Nair, Delhi. Advocate. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated 02-11-2004 passed by the District Forum the appellant-Company has been directed to pay insurance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards loss of vehicle and Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation with the liberty to the appellant to scrutinize all the documents of NOC from the banker to its satisfaction before the payment of the ordered amount.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. Case of the respondent, in brief, before the District Forum was that he insured his vehicle NO. DL-4 CM 7038, Santro car with appellant on 20-06-2001. The effective date of insurance was 20-06-2001 to 19-06-2002. Unfortunately the vehicle was stolen on 27-08-2001. FIR was lodged with P.S. Nangloi on 27-08-2001 itself u/s 3791 PC. The vehicle was never traced. The respondent simultaneously informed the appellant but officers of the appellant evaded the respondent on the ground that tracing the vehicle is not their job.
In spite of submitting claim papers with the appellant, appellant did not settle the claim. The respondent prayed for direction to the appellant to pay the insurance amount cost and compensation.
4. While justifying the repudiation of the claim the appellant took the plea that the respondent informed the appellant after a lapse of one and half years from the date of loss without any reason. Appellant relied upon condition No. 1 of the policy. Appellant further pleaded that vehicle was under hire purchase agreement with Citi Bank N.A. New Delhi. No claim can be settled without no objection certificate from the banker and the appellant prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The impugned order has been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that there was inordinately long delay in informing the police about the theft of the vehicle whereas the term of the policy cast obligation upon him to inform the occurrence immediately and further that the respondent informed the appellant about the occurrence after a lapse of 1 years which again suffers from vice of latches and in the given facts and circumstances of the case the conduct of the respondent is not prudent and reasonable. A person who has lost his brand new car would not sit at home and would not take a year and half to inform the insurance company. Apart from this the learned counsel for the appellant also contended that no claim can be settled without no objection certificate from the banker from whom the respondent had taken loan.
6. As regards the last objection it has been well taken care of by the District Forum by giving liberty to the appellant to scrutinize all the documents of NOC from the Banker to its satisfaction before the payment of the ordered amount though it is not a statutory requirement. It was respondent who had obtained insurance policy by paying consideration. Vehicle was registered in the name of the respondent. In the loan agreement or hypothecation agreement the borrower is the actual owner of the vehicle. His liability towards finance company or to the banker is an independent contract. The remedy to a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by virtue of section 3 of the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.
7. As regards delay and latches the perusal of the record shows that respondent lodged the report on 27-08-2001 the day when the theft had taken place.
8. We have taken a view that it is not necessary for the purpose of insurance claim that a consumer should produce copy of the FIR. His lodging of report about the theft of the vehicle with the policy is sufficient. Because such a person has no control over the police to write the F.I.R. or DD Report. What is relevant and germane for deciding the claim of the consumer is whether the loss of vehicle has taken place by way of theft or not. If there is any suspicion or doubt about the bonafide of such a consumer say wrong or false report the Insurance Company should approach the police which under Code of Criminal Procedure is the only statutory authority to investigate into the offence of theft and no other authority.
9. The word immediately appearing in the Insurance Policy is not that the moment the occurrence takes place the consumer should run to the Insurance Company and inform, as first reaction is to search and look out for a stolen vehicle and it is after some time that he decides to lodge report with the police and lodging a report does not mean that FIR should be recorded. In such cases, FIR includes DD report also.
10. The finding of fact returned by the District Forum on this aspect does not suffer from any infirmity and has to be maintained as the District Forum has looked into each and every aspect of these documents and so have we.
11. However, we have taken a view that the consumer is entitled for the entire insurance amount in case of total loss less depreciation by way 10% for the commercial vehicle and 5% for the private vehicle.
12. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the appeal by reducing the insurance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- less 10% and maintain rest of the order.
13. Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
14. A copy of the order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
15. Announced on the 31st January, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj