State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Ram General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Rockey Lawrance on 26 December, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/15/504
Instituted on : 15.10.2015
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Manager, Branch Office,
4th Floor, Maruti Heights Building, Aamanaka,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
Rockey Lawrence, S/o Shri C.V. Rawrence
Age 33 years, R/o : Quarter No.30/A/6,
Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Police Station Supela,
Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) .... Respondent
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :-
Shri Deepesh Thawait, for the appellant.
Shri Daneshwar Prasad Dubey, for the respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 26/12/2015 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.CC/15/89. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint filed by respondent (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay within a period of one month from // 2 // the date of order, the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.47,500/- to the respondent (complainant). If the above amount is not paid within stipulated period, then the appellant (O.P.) will be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till realisation. The appellant (O.P.) has further been directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.7,000/- towards cost of litigation to the respondent (complainant).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (complainant) was registered owner of vehicle Honda Activa bearing registration No.C.G.07-A.Q.8185, which was comprehensively insured with the appellant (O.P.) under policy No.209038/31/14/002602 for the period from 28.03.2014 to 27.03.2015. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.47,500/-. On 30.05.2014 at about 2.00 P.M., the respondent (complainant) parked the vehicle in front of Rockey Furniture Hall, Akashganga, Supela Bhilai and the vehicle was duly locked. The vehicle was stolen by some miscreants from there. The respondent (complainant) lodged report in Police Station, Supela and also gave intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle to Nikhil Honda, Bhilai, from where he purchased the said vehicle and from where the registration of vehicle and insurance was done. After theft of the vehicle in question, Shri L.K. Tuteja, who was appointed as Surveyor by the appellant (O.P.) demanded documents from time to time and // 3 // the respondent (complainant) provided both keys of vehicle, original claim form, R.C. Particulars, First Information Report, Final Report, Intimation given to R.T.O. regarding theft of the vehicle, satisfaction voucher to the Surveyor. In spite of providing all documents and information, the appellant (O.P.) did not settle the claim of the respondent (complainant). Thus, the appellant (O.P.) in spite of receiving premium amount from the respondent (complainant),did not make payment of the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle which was stolen by some miscreants. The appellant (O.P.) did not provide material information in this regard, due to which he suffered mental agony and financial loss. The act of the appellant (O.P.) comes in the category of deficiency in service as well and unfair trade practice. Therefore, the respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the prayer clause of the complaint.
3. The appellant (O.P.) filed written statement and averred that the vehicle of the respondent (complainant) was stolen on 30.05.2014 from an open place. The respondent (complainant) did not take any measure for security of his vehicle. The respondent (complainant) lodged report n Police Station, Supela on 23.06.2014 and intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was given to the appellant (O.P.) on 03.09.2014. Thus, the respondent (complainant) gave intimation // 4 // regarding theft of the vehicle to the concerned Police Station after 23 days of the incident and after 03 months and 02 days to the appellant (O.P.) and which is violation of Condition No.1 of the insurance policy. The respondent (complainant) submitted the motor claim form before the Insurance Company. The appellant (O.P.) sent letters through registered post on 08.09.2014, 13.10.2014 and 06.11.2014 and demanded documents, but the respondent (complainant) did not deposit the above documents and did not co-operate the appellant (O.P.). The appellant (O.P.) on the basis of Condition No.1 of the insurance policy, non-co-operation of the respondent (complainant) and not submitting documents, sent letter dated 11.12.2014 through registered post and closed the claim file as no claim. Thus, the appellant (O.P.) did not commit any deficiency in service. The respondent (complainant) did not immediately give intimation regarding the incident to the appellant (O.P.). The Surveyor did not fill up the claim form from the respondent (complainant).
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay compensation to the respondent (complainant), as mentioned in para 1 of the above order.
5. The respondent (complainant) filed documents. Annexure 1 is Vehicle Registration Book, Annexure 2 is Vehicle Registration // 5 // Particulars, Annexure 3 is Tax Invoice dated 31.03.2014, Annexure 4 is Insurance Policy for the period from 28.03.2014 to 27.03.2015, Annexure 5 is First Information Report, Annexure 6 is Police Investigation Report, Annexure 7 is letter dated 08.09.2014 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), Annexure 8 is letter dated 13.10.2014 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), Annexure 9 is letter dated 09.12.2014 sent by the respondent (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.), Annexure 10 is document containing information received from the Police Station, Supela, Annexure 10 is Final Report dated 26.11.2014 received from the Court, Annexure 12 is postal order.
6. The appellant (O.P.) filed documents. NA-1 is Certificate Cum Policy Schedule Motorised - Two Wheelers Package Policy - Zone B, NA-2 is Two Wheeler Package Policy (Policy Wording), NA-3 is Claim Intimation Slip, NA-4 is First Information Report, NA-5 is letter dated 08.09.2014 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), NA-6 is letter dated 13.10.2014 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), NA-7 is letter dated 06.11.2014 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant), NA-8 is Closure Letter dated 12.12.2014 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the respondent (complainant).
// 6 //
7. Shri Deepesh Thawait, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum by allowing the complaint of the respondent (complainant), is perverse and is not sustainable in eye of law. The learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the facts brought on record and has also miserably failed to bring home the ingredients of "deficiency in service" by overlooking the facts of the case. There is nothing on record to show that the incident of theft of the vehicle was reported to the appellant (O.P.) in time and it also not on record that the incident of theft of the vehicle, was informed to the concerned Police Station. The incident of theft of the vehicle took place on 30.05.2014 and the First Information Report was lodged before the concerned Police Station on 23.06.2014 i.e. after 23 days of the date of incident and the intimation regarding the incident was given to the appellant (O.P.) on 03.09.2014 i.e. after 3 months and 2 days from the date of incident, which is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the finding recorded by the District Forum is arbitrary and is not sustainable in eye of law and the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is liable to be set aside.
8. Shri Daneshwar Prasad Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant), has supported the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and submitted that the incident // 7 // of theft of the vehicle was immediately intimated to the concerned Police Station as well as to the appellant (O.P.). The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission, hence, the appeal of the appellant (O.P.) , is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
10. The respondent (complainant) filed a document Annexure -2 which is containing registration details of the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.07--AQ-8185. The vehicle Honda Activa bearing registration No.C.G.07-AQ-8185, was registered in the name of Rockey Lawrence, the respondent (complainant). The said vehicle was insured with the appellant (O.P.). The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.47,500/-. In the Certificate Cum Policy Schedule (Annexure - 4 ), it is mentioned that the vehicle was insured with the appellant (O.P.) for the period from 28.03.2014 to 27.03.2015 and Collection No. & Dt. CHQ 9210002721 02/04/2014 is also mentioned. It appears that the respondent (complainant) was registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.07-AQ-8185.
11. The respondent (complainant) pleaded that on 30.05.2014 at about 2.00 P.M., he parked the vehicle in front of Rockey Furniture // 8 // Hall, Akashganga, Supela Bhilai and vehicle was duly locked. The vehicle was stolen by some miscreants. The respondent (complainant) filed photocopy of First Information Report (Annexure 5). In First Information Report, the date and time of incident is mentioned as 30.05.2014 at about 2.00-3.00 P.M. The date of lodging First Information Report is mentioned as 23.06.2014. It appears that the First Information Report was lodged before the concerned Police Station after 23 days of the date of incident. In the Police Investigation Report, it is mentioned that the report was lodged on 23.06.2014 and Crime No.512/14 for offence under Section 379 IPC was registered. The Police could not trace the miscreant, then Khatma No.116/14 dated 31.07.2014 was issued.
12. In the First Information Report (Annexure 5), it is simply mentioned that delay occurred due to searching of the vehicle,, therefore, the First Information Report could not be lodged immediately before the concerned Police Station. It appears that the report was lodged by the respondent (complainant) after 23 days of the date of incident of theft. The respondent (complainant) did not file any document, which indicate that the intimation regarding the incident was given to the appellant (O.P.) immediately.
13. The respondent (complainant) filed document Annexure 7 which is letter dated 08.09.2014 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the // 9 // respondent (complainant) in which it is mentioned that the intimation regarding the incident of the theft of the vehicle was received by the appellant (O.P.) after 3 months and 3 days from the date of the incident. The respondent (complainant) sent reply of the above letter (Annexure 7) to the appellant (O.P.) on 09.12.2014 which is marked as Annexure 9, but in the above letter (Annexure 9) it is not mentioned that intimation regarding the incident of theft of the vehicle was sent by the respondent (complainant) to the appellant (O.P.) immediately.
14. In Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nikhil Seth, IV (2015) CPJ 195 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Delay of two days in lodging FIR casts a film of doubt over bona fide of complainant. Repudiation justified."
15. In Jaspal Kaur & Anr. vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, II (2015) CPJ 727 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"3. We are of the considered view that the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. The Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No.6739, decided on 17.08.2010, was pleased to hold :
"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 // 10 // which give 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."
4. Again this Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane, IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC) = in First Appeal No.321 of 2005, decided on 09.12.2009 took the same view and discussed the word immediately :
"As per Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, word immediately is defined as under :
// 11 // (1) The word immediately, although in strictness it excludes all mean times, yet to make good the deeds and intents of parties it shall be construed such convenient time as is reasonable requisite for doing the thing.
As per Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, word immediately means :
Immediately. Without interval of time, without delay, straightaway, or without any delay or lapse of time. When used in contract is usually construed to mean within a reasonable time having due regard to the nature of the circumstances of the case, although strictly, it means, not deferred by any period of time. The words immediately and forthwith have generally the same meaning. They are stronger than the expression within a reasonable time and imply prompt, vigorous action without any delay."
Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Ed., Vol. 23, para 1618, p. 1178 where it meant immediately is to be construed as meaning with all reasonable speed, considering the circumstances of the case.
The word immediately is stronger than the expression within a reasonable time. It was held that compensation on non-standard basis cannot be granted. The case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Nitin Khandelwal, reported in IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) = (2008) 11 SCC 256, was also discussed."
16. In Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Gurshinder Singh & Anr., II (2015) CPJ 750 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"6. Admittedly, there is delay of 52 days in intimation to Insurance Company. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed // 12 // reliance on judgment of this Commission in IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Trilochan Jane, in which on account of delay of 2 days in lodging FIR and delay of 9 days in intimation to Insurance Company regarding theft of vehicle, claim of complainant was dismissed. He has also placed reliance on I (2014) CPJ 29 (NC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Avtar, in which claim was dismissed on account of delay of 35 days in intimation to Insurance Company regarding theft of vehicle, though, FIR was lodged on the same day. He also placed reliance on judgment of Apex Court in C.A. No.6739 of 2010, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvesh Chander Chadha, in which orders of Fora below including National Commission were set aside and complaint was dismissed as vehicle was stolen between 18.1.1995 to 20.1.1995 and FIR was lodged on 20.1.1995, but intimation to Insurance Co. was given on 22.5.1995. In the aforesaid case, it was also observed that complainant was duty-bound to inform about theft of the vehicle to the Insurance Company immediately after the incident.
7. In the light of aforesaid judgments, it becomes clear that on account of delay of 52 days in intimation to Insurance Company regarding theft of insured vehicle, OP has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal."
17. In Sarfarjudeen v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., I (2015) CPJ 748 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"5. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which would justify our interference with it. The petitioner has not placed any material before us to take a different view. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the revision petition, which is liable for dismissal. While on the subject we would like to mention that in // 13 // addition to what is observed by the State Commission, we may note that there was delay of four days in lodging FIR and admittedly, the intimation about the information of theft was sent to the Insurance Company after a month of the theft. The terms of the policy require immediate action in such cases and as per settled law, such delay in the case of theft would result in outright repudiation of the claim because delay in lodging the FIR or intimating the Insurance Company would be disastrous to the interests of the Insurance Company and the same constitutes violation of a fundamental condition of the insurance contract. On this count also we are convinced that the claim of the petitioner was liable for repudiation. In view of above, the revision petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs."
18. In Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mahender Jat, I (2015) CPJ 74 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
17. We have considered the rival contentions. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra) dismissed the complaint holding that in terms of the policy issued by the insurance policy, the insured was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the accident.
Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. It was further held that the insurance company could not be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the insured despite the fact that he has not complied with the terms of the policy. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court read 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 // 14 // 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 10.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajinder Singh Pawar, but this 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 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 edeavour 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 saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy."
18. The said judgment has been followed by Coordinate Bench of this Commission in the matter of Dharambir v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). From this it is evident that the issue raised in this revision petition is no more res integra. Admittedly the intimation of theft was given to the Insurance Company 21 days after the theft. Thus, finding of the State Commission allowing the claim by the respondent is not justified."
19. In Kulwant Singh vs. The Managing Director, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, 2015 (1) CLT 106, Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "in terms of policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle // 15 // 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. It is further observed that 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 the insurer and this violation of condition is fundamental to the loss caused which justifies the repudiation of claim by the respondent Insurance Company."
20. In the instant case, the incident of theft of the vehicle took place on 30.05.2014 and the First Information Report was lodged before the concerned Police Station on 23.06..2014 i .e. after near about 23 days of the date of the incident and the matter was reported to the appellant (O.P.) after near about 3 months of the date of incident of theft. The respondent (complainant) has not given any plausible and reliable explanation for delayed intimation . Due to delayed intimation to the appellant (O.P.), the appellant (O.P.) was deprived of its legitimate right to get conducted investigation into the alleged incident of theft.
21. In the instant case, the First Information Report was lodged belatedly and intimation regarding the incident was also given to the // 16 // appellant (O.P.) at a belated stage, therefore we find that the respondent (complainant) has violated the terms of the insurance policy, which is fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance policy, therefore, the appellant (O.P.) has a right to repudiate the claim of the respondent (complainant) and the appellant (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent (complainant).
22. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.08.2015, passed by the District Forum, suffers from infirmity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.
23. Hence, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) and set aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2015, passed by the District Forum. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) also stands dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) President Member Member Member /12/2015 /12/2015 /12/2015 /12/2015