National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kulwant Singh vs The Managing Director, United India ... on 15 September, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.3320 OF 2014 (From the order dated 4.6.2014 in First Appeal No.55/2013 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) Kulwant Singh S/o Shri Nirmal Singh R/o VPO, Pharala, Tehsil-Nawanshahr, District-SBS Nagar Petitioner Versus 1. The Managing Director United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 24, Whites Road, Chennai 2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Branch office at Nawanshahr Tehsil Nawanshahr, Divisional Office No.2, Sial House, Lajpat Nagar Market-Jalandhar, District Jalandhar Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Sood, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 15th SEPTEMBER, 2014 ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) dated 4.6.2014 in first appeal No.55/2013 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents/opposite parties and dismissed the complaint.
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint alleging that he got his jeep make Bolero insured with the opposite parties on 10.1.2011. On 18.4.2011 the petitioner visited his friends house at Phagwara and parked the vehicle outside the house. On the next day the petitioner found that the vehicle was stolen. The matter was reported to the police vide FIR No.33/2011 under Section 379 IPC, P.S. City Fagwara. The intimation was also given to the respondents/opposite parties. The insurance claim of the petitioner, however, was repudiated by the opposite parties. Being aggrieved of the repudiation the petitioner filed a consumer complaint.
3. The respondents/opposite parties in their written statement took the plea that the theft took place on the night intervening 18.4.2011 and 19.4.2011 but information was given to the police after the delay of three days on 22.4.2011 which amounts to the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also pleaded that the vehicle at the time of theft was unregistered and the registration certificate was got prepared in illegal manner after the alleged theft and also that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving license.
4. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties as also the evidence, learned District Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.5,97,000/- against the insurance claim besides Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondents preferred an appeal and the State Commission vide the impugned order set aside the order of the District Forum, allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. This has led to filing of the revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that the State Commission overlooked the fact that the petitioner had informed the police about the theft of the vehicle on very same day but the police after conducting its investigation had registered the complaint on 22.4.2011 for which the petitioner cannot be penalized. It is further contended that the State Commission has committed an illegality in going beyond the reasons given by the opposite party in the letter repudiating the claim.
7. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it would be useful to have a look on the reason given by the State Commission in allowing the appeal and dismissing the complaint. Relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced as under:
11. The complainant himself proved on record the insurance policy Ex.C-8, which was a Private Car Package Policy for the period 10.1.2011 to 9.1.2012. However, it is pertinent to note that he did not produce all the pages of this policy. The proforma of Private Car Package Policy was proved on the record by the opposite parties as Ex.R-6. The relevant condition contained therein is reproduced below:-
1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require.
Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.
A perusal of this condition makes it clear that the complainant was required to give immediate notice of the theft to the police and was to co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender. It is very much clear from his own application Ex.C-16 that he reported the theft, which had taken place on the night of 18/19.4.2011, to the police on 22.4.2011, i.e. after more than two days. Can it be said that there was compliance of the above said condition? This very question came up for consideration before the Honble National Commission in First Appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 (NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. TRILOCHAN JANE). In that case the FIR was lodged after two days of the coming to know of the theft. It was held therein that in case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the complainant to inform the police about the theft immediately say within 24 hours otherwise valuable time would be wasted in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, it was also held that the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify whether any theft took place and to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. It was held that this delay can be fatal as in the meanwhile the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to the Scrap Dealer.
Thus, it is to be held that on account of the non-giving of notice immediately about the theft to the police and to the opposite parties the complainant violated the fundamental condition of the insurance policy, which disentitles him to the claim made in the complaint. The District Forum committed an illegality while holding to the contrary.
In the result, this appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
8. On reading of the above it is clear that the State Commission has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner on the ground of violation of the condition of the insurance contract which requires the insured to give immediate information of theft to the police as also to the insurance company. The aforesaid view of taken by the State Commission cannot be faulted because it is well settled that the insurance is a contract between the parties and while deciding the insurance dispute between the parties the terms and conditions of the contract are to be strictly followed. The State Commission has allowed the appeal relying upon the judgment of this Commission in the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane in First Appeal No.321/2005, wherein this Commission has held as under:
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.
9. In terms of the policy issued by the respondent insurance company, petitioner was bound to inform the respondent about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. In this regard reference be made to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 decided on 17.8.2010 wherein it has been held that not informing the insurance company immediately after the theft deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to investigate the matter and such a delay is fatal to the claim.
Relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as under:
Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar , but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident.
On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same.
Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that even if the insured had committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claim of the petitioner should have been settled on non-standard basis in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 SCC 536.
11. In my respectful opinion the above judgment in the matter of Amalendu Sahu (supra) is of no avail to the petitioner because it is based upon its own distinct fact. In the case of Amalendu Sahoo (supra) the insured had filed insurance claim in respect of the damage caused to the vehicle due to accident and the claim was repudiated on the ground that at the time of accident the insured had used the vehicle for hire against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In that case using of vehicle for hire had no correlation with the accident. Therefore, the violation of the condition by the insured was not germane to the damage caused to the vehicle. However, in the instant case the petitioner did not immediately inform the police about the theft and the matter was reported three days later. Such a delay can be fatal as within three days the vehicle could have been driven long distance even across the border of the country or could have been dismantled and sold to the scrap dealer. Thus, by delaying the information of theft to the police, the petitioner insured had acted against the interest of insurer and this violation of condition is fundamental to the loss caused which justifies the repudiation of claim by the respondent insurance company.
12. In view of the discussion above, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
13. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost.
..
(AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Raj/