State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Karamjeet Singh vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 24 June, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.283 of 2022
Date of institution : 12.04.2022
Reserved On : 29.05.2024
Date of decision : 24.06.2024
Karamjeet Singh son of Sh. Mohinder Singh, resident of 1273, Street
No.3, Vardhman Nagar, Rahon Road, Ludhiana.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Service Hub-Surya Tower, 108,
The Mall, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 354, 3rd Floor, Bhagwati Tower,
R.K. Road, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana-141003, through its
Branch Manager.
....Respondents/OPs
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-
For the Appellant : Sh. Devinder Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate.
First Appeal No.283 of 2022 2
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
Appellant/Complainant Karamjeet Singh has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for modification of the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the Complaint filed by him had been partly allowed.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Appellant/Complainant in the Complaint filed by him before the District Commission are that he was the registered owner of truck bearing Registration No.PB-10-CT-6692, which was insured with the Insurance Company i.e. the Respondents/OPs for the period w.e.f. 25.02.2016 to 24.02.2017. Further, it was mentioned that during the period of November/December, 2016, due to demonetization, there was heavy slump in the business of transport and due to that reason, the Complainant had parked his truck at a safe parking place near his office on 15.12.2016. Said parking area was part and parcel of Truck Union, where a number trucks were used to be parked in routine. On 26.12.2016, the Complainant reached his office and found that his truck was missing from said place, where it was parked on 15.12.2016. First Appeal No.283 of 2022 3 Lastly the truck was seen parked there on 24.12.2016. The Complainant had lodged the Complaint with Police Station Division No.6 but the police officials had asked him to search for the vehicle. The intimation regarding the theft of truck was also given to the agent of the OPs, who had appointed Er. D.P.S. Grover as surveyor. However, the truck could not be traced out and the police had registered the FIR No.44 on 13.02.2017. Thereafter, the claim was submitted by the Complainant to the OPs along with the requisite documents. However, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 19.02.2018 on the ground of delay of 48 days in lodging the FIR and also that the Complainant had not taken necessary steps to safeguard the vehicle, as it had remained parked unattended for a period of 10 days and also that the Complainant had not supplied the required documents despite repeated requests and sending reminders.
4. Upon issuance of notice in the said Complaint, the OPs had appeared through Counsel and written version was filed, wherein it was mentioned that there was delay of 48 days in lodging of the FIR. Certain relevant documents were demanded, which were necessary to process the claim but the same were not supplied even after sending certain reminders. The claim was rightly repudiated on said ground itself. Other allegations as made in the Complaint were denied and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.
First Appeal No.283 of 2022 4
5. By considering the contents of the Complaint and reply thereof filed by the OPs, the Complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 28.02.2022. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-14 is reproduced as under:
"14. As a result of above discussion, the Complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OPs shall consider and reimburse the claim in respect of the theft of the motor cycle bearing No.PB10-CT- 6692 on non-standard basis to the extent of 50% of the IDV of the vehicle strictly as per terms and condition of the policy with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaint till actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall further pay composite costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the Complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room."
6. Being dissatisfied by the said order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant has filed the present Appeal by raising a number of arguments.
7. Mr. Devinder Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant has submitted that necessary information, which was required to be given to the police as well as the Insurance Company was conveyed well in time and the requisite documents were also submitted. The claim was not released in-spite of supplying all the documents. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the FIR was registered on 13.02.2017, whereas the Complainant had already informed the police on 26.12.2016, as is clear from the statement (Annexure A-2/Ex.C-3) of the Complainant, which was recorded by ASI Davinder Singh at Police Station, Division No.6, Ludhiana, which First Appeal No.283 of 2022 5 was duly stamped and signed by him. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the intimation of theft was received by the OPs on 28.12.2016, which was sent through email and as such there was no delay in intimating the OPs. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the District Commission had failed to take into consideration a material fact that the surveyor Er. D.P.S. Grover had issued a letter dated 30.03.2018 (Annexure A-3/Ex.C4), whereby he had admitted that on his personal visit to the police station to investigate the matter, it was revealed that the police officials had received the message on 26.12.2016 regarding theft of the truck and a wireless message was also sent to the concerned police officials when it was required. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the said surveyor had also stated in his affidavit about his report dated 03.07.2017, wherein the stand was taken that the Complainant had intimated the police on 13.02.2017 on the basis of which the FIR was registered relating to theft. However, the surveyor had not denied the letter dated 30.03.2018 and as such the District Commission was misled by taking the contradictory stand by the surveyor and by filing a false affidavit. However, the District Commission had wrongly considered said document while passing the impugned order. Learned Counsel has also submitted that despite clarification and receipt of entire record, the claim was not released by the OPs, whereas in the Investigation Report as submitted by the surveyor, it was clearly mentioned that the First Appeal No.283 of 2022 6 requisite documents had already been submitted by the Complainant. The claim was wrongly repudiated on the ground of non-submission of relevant documents. The Complaint was partly allowed, whereas it was to be allowed as prayed in the Complaint by modifying the impugned order passed by the District Commission. At the end, it has been submitted that the District Commission had not properly appreciated the pleadings, evidence and also the law applicable in the present case and the impugned order was passed without taking into consideration the terms and conditions of the policy and other factors. The interest and litigation expenses awarded are on the lower side and the same are also liable to be enhanced.
8. Mr. Munish Goel, learned Counsel for the Respondents/OPs has submitted that the Complainant had not immediately intimated the police as well as the OPs about the theft of the truck and had also not supplied the required documents as demanded by the OPs. Learned Counsel has further submitted that there was huge delay in lodging of the FIR, which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The Complainant had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle and as such the claim was rightly repudiated. The Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the parties. We have also carefully perused the impugned order First Appeal No.283 of 2022 7 passed by the District Commission and all other documents available on the file.
10. Facts regarding filing of the Complaint by the Appellant/Complainant before the District Commission, reply thereto filed by the OPs, partly allowing of said Complaint and thereafter filing of the present Appeal by the Appellant/Complainant before this Commission are not in dispute.
11. Admittedly, the claim of the Complainant was repudiated by the OPs vide letter dated 19.02.2018 (Ex.C-7) on the grounds that there was delay of 48 days in lodging of the FIR, which was in violation of Condition No.1 of the policy and the Complainant had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle as he had left the truck unattended for a period of 10 days, which was violative of Condition No.5 of the policy and the Complainant had also not supplied the required documents despite repeated requests and reminders.
12. As far as the first ground of repudiation that there was delay of 48 days in lodging of the FIR is concerned, it is relevant to mention that as per the version of the Complainant, he had lastly seen the truck while parked on 24.12.2016 and on 25.12.2016, it was not found at the parking place. Information of theft was given to the OPs on 28.12.2016 through email and this fact has been admitted by them. The Complainant had immediately approached Police Station, Division No.6 on 26.12.2016 but the police officials had asked him to make First Appeal No.283 of 2022 8 efforts to search of the truck and thereafter to approach them. It was election period due to assembly elections in the State of Punjab and as such the police was reluctant to register the Complaint of the Complainant. From perusal of writing (Ex.C-3), which was signed and stamped by ASI Davinder Singh, Police Station, Division No.6, Ludhiana, the Complainant had intimated the police on 26.12.2016s about the theft of the truck. The surveyor Er. D.P.S. Grover had also sent the letter dated 30.03.2018 (Ex.C-4) to the Insurance Company, wherein it was mentioned that he had received a call from the Complainant regarding theft of his truck and on his personal visits to the police station, it was revealed that the police had received a message on 26.12.2016 qua to theft of the insured truck and a wireless message was also sent to the concerned police officials. Although said letter dated 30.03.2018 is not signed by the surveyor but it is typed on the letter-pad of the surveyor with full details. Said letter dated 30.03.2018 (Ex.C-4) was tendered into evidence by the Complainant on 02.09.2021. The OPs had tendered the affidavit dated 15.09.2021 of the surveyor (Ex.RB) into evidence on 08.11.2021, wherein he had stated that the Complainant had intimated the police on 13.02.2017. Even the surveyor had not denied the letter dated 30.03.2018 in his affidavit. When the Complainant had produced letter dated 30.03.2018 on record, the surveyor could have denied the same in his affidavit but it was not done for the reasons best known to him. First Appeal No.283 of 2022 9 Non-denial of a material fact goes against the party, who has not denied it. Therefore, the said letter dated 30.03.2018 issued by the surveyor cannot be discarded. The OPs have also produced on record the affidavit of the Complainant (Ex.R-7) but it appears that the signatures of the Complainant were obtained earlier on blank paper and thereafter the affidavit was prepared. The signatures of the Complainant appear only at the bottom but there are no signatures of the Complainant above the verification. Further, it was mentioned in said affidavit that the vehicle was stolen on 26.12.2016 and the Complainant had registered the Complaint with Division No.6 in FIR No.44 of 13.02.2017, which further supports his version that he had approached the police immediately after the occurrence of theft.
13. Otherwise also, the Untraced Report (Ex.C-5) was submitted by the police after proper investigation that the vehicle in dispute could not be traced out despite best efforts made by the police. Further, as per certificate dated 20.06.2017 issued by the Motor Vehicle Verification Counter, National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, the vehicle was not recovered. The order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana was also produced on record by the Complainant, whereby the Untraced Report of the stolen vehicle was accepted. It is also not the case of the Insurance Company that the material facts relating to theft of the vehicle had been suppressed or First Appeal No.283 of 2022 10 fabricated by the Complainant because of delay in lodging the FIR. Meaning thereby, the incident of theft has not been found to be ingenuine. Therefore, the above said ground as raised by the OPs cannot be given much weight.
14. It also needs to be emphasized that the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (in short, "IRDA") issued Circular dated 20.9.2011 to all life-insurers and non-life insurers regarding delay in claim intimation/documents submission with respect to all life insurance contracts and all non-life individual and group insurance contracts. The same is reproduced hereunder:-
"INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Ref. IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 Dated:20.09.2011 CIRCULAR To All life insurers and non-life insurers.
Re: Delay in claim intimation/documents submission with respect to i. All life insurance contracts and ii. All Non-life individual and group insurance contracts.
The Authority has been receiving several Complaints that claims are being rejected on the ground of delayed submission of intimation and documents.
The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.
The insurer's decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. It may be noted that such limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute. One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policyholders losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigation.
Therefore, it is advised that all insurers need to develop a sound mechanism of their own to handle such claims with utmost care and caution. It is also advised that the insurers must not repudiate such claims First Appeal No.283 of 2022 11 unless and until the reasons of delay are specifically ascertained, recorded and the insurers should satisfy themselves that the delayed claims would have otherwise been rejected even if reported in time.
The insurers are advised to incorporate additional wordings in the policy documents, suitable enunciating insurers' stand to condone delay on merit for delayed claims where the delay is proved to be for reasons beyond the control of the insured.
Sd/- J. Harinarayan CHAIRMAN."
15. In the case of Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance and Anr. 2018(1) CPR 907 (SC), the truck was stolen and there was delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. While allowing the Appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Para-11 as under:-
"11. It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act."
16. Noticing that there was a conflict between the decisions of the Bench of the two Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Parkash's case (supra) and in the case of "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvesh Chander Chadha" 2009(1) CLT 552, First Appeal No.283 of 2022 12 on the question as to whether delay in informing the occurrence of the theft of the vehicle to the Insurance Company would disentitle the claimant of the insurance claim, the Bench of two Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 09.01.2018, had referred the matter to a three Judges Bench. The said three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.653 of 2020 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.24370 of 2015) (GURSHINDER SINGH v. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR), after duly considering the judgments passed in the above said two cases, has observed in Para Nos.18 to 20 in its judgment dated 24.01.2020 as under:-
"18. We concur with the view taken in the case of Om Prakash (supra), that in such a situation if the claimant is denied the claim merely on the ground that there is some delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft, it would be taking a hyper technical view. We find that this Court in Om Prakash (supra) has rightly held that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the investigator.
19. We find that this Court in Om Prakash (supra) has rightly held that the Consumer Protection Act aims at protecting the interest of the consumers and it being a beneficial legislation deserves pragmatic construction. We find that in Om Prakash (supra) this Court has rightly held that mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle should not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claim which has been otherwise proved to be genuine.
20. We, therefore, hold that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured."
17. This issue has also been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaina Construction Company v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Civil Appeal No.1069 of 2022 First Appeal No.283 of 2022 13 decided on 11.02.2022. The relevant portion of said judgment as mentioned in Para Nos.8 & 9 is reproduced as under:
"8. At the outset, it may be noted that there being a conflict of decisions of the Bench of two Judges of this Court in case of Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance & Another and in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, on the question as to whether the delay occurred in informing the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft of the vehicle, though the FIR was registered immediately, would disentitle the claimant of the insurance claim, the matter was referred to a three Judge Bench. The three Judge Bench in case of Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. & Another reported in 2020 (11) SCC 612 in similar case as on hand, interpreted the very condition no. 1 of the Insurance Contract and observed as under:
"9. We are of the view that much would depend upon the words "cooperate" and "immediate", in Condition 1 of the standard form for commercial vehicles package policy. Before we analyse this case any further, we need to observe the rules of interpretation applicable to a contract of insurance. Generally, an insurance contract is governed by the rules of interpretation applicable to the general contracts. However, due to the specialised nature of contract of insurance, certain rules are tailored to suit insurance contracts. Under the English law, the development of insurance jurisprudence is given credence to Lord Mansfield, who developed the law from its infancy. Without going much into the development of the interpretation rules, we may allude to Neuberger, J. in Arnold v. Britton, which is simplified as under:
(1) Reliance placed in some cases on commercial common sense and surrounding circumstances was not to be invoked to undervalue the importance of the language of the provision which is to be construed.
(2) The less clear the words used were, the more ready the court could properly be to depart from their natural meaning, but that did not justify departing from the natural meaning.
(3) Commercial common sense was not to be invoked retrospectively, so that the mere fact that a contractual arrangement has worked out badly, or even disastrously, for one of the parties was not a reason for departing from the natural language.
(4) A court should be very slow to reject the natural meaning of a provision as correct simply because it appeared to be a very imprudent term for one of the parties to have agreed.
(5) When interpreting a contractual provision, the court could only take into account facts or circumstances which existed at the time that the contract was made and which were known or reasonably available to both parties.First Appeal No.283 of 2022 14
(6) If an event subsequently occurred which was plainly not intended or contemplated by the parties, if it was clear what the parties would have intended, the court would give effect to that intention.
10. A perusal of the aforesaid shows that this contract is to be interpreted according to the context involved in the contract. The contract we are interpreting is a commercial vehicle package policy.
There is no gainsaying that in a contract, the bargaining power is usually at equal footing. In this regard, the joint intention of the parties is taken into consideration for interpretation of a contract. However, in most standard form contracts, that is not so. In this regard, the court in such circumstances would consider the application of the rule of contra proferentem, when ambiguity exists and an interpretation of the contract is preferred which favours the party with lesser bargaining power.
11. It is argued on behalf of the Respondents and rightly so, that the insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured and the parties would be strictly bound by the terms and conditions as provided in the contract between the parties.
12. In our view, applying the aforesaid principles, Condition 1 of the standard form for commercial vehicles package policy will have to be divided into two parts. The perusal of the first part of Condition 1 would reveal that it provides that "a notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage". It further provides that in the event of any claim and thereafter, the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. It provides that every letter, claim, writ, summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the insurance company immediately on receipt by the insured. It further provides that a notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately by the insured if he shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence, which may give rise to a claim under this policy.
13. A perusal of the wordings used in this part would reveal that all the things which are required to be done under this part are related to an occurrence of an accident. On occurrence of an accidental loss, the insured is required to immediately give a notice in writing to the company. This appears to be so that the company can assign a surveyor so as to assess the damages suffered by the insured/vehicle. It further provides that any letter, claim, writ, summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. As such, the intention would be clear. The question of receipt of letter, claim, writ, summons and/or process or copy thereof by the insured, would only arise in the event of the criminal proceedings being initiated with regard to the occurrence of the accident. It further provides that the insured shall also give a notice in writing to the company immediately if the insured shall have the knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this First Appeal No.283 of 2022 15 policy. It will again make the intention clear that the immediate action is contemplated in respect of an accident occurring to the vehicle.
14. We find that the second part of Condition 1 deals with the "theft or criminal act other than the accident". It provides that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle. Per contra, the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most, could ascertain the factum regarding the theft of the vehicle.
15. It is further to be noted that, in the event, after the registration of an FIR, the police successfully recovering the vehicle and returning the same to the insured, there would be no occasion to lodge a claim for compensation on account of the policy. It is only when the police are not in a position to trace and recover the vehicle and the final report is lodged by the police after the vehicle is not traced, the insured would be in a position to lodge his claim for compensation.
16. ........................
17. That the term "cooperate" as used under the contract needs to be assessed in the facts and circumstances. While assessing the "duty to cooperate" for the insured, inter alia, the court should have regard to those breaches by the insured which are prejudicial to the insurance company. Usually, mere delay in informing the theft to the insurer, when the same was already informed to the law enforcement authorities, cannot amount to a breach of "duty to cooperate" of the insured.
18. ...............
19. ..............
20. We, therefore, hold that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured."
9. In the opinion of the Court the afore-stated ratio of the judgment clinches the issue involved in the case on hand. In the instant case also, the FIR was lodged immediately on the next day of the occurrence of theft of the vehicle by the Complainant. The accused were also arrested and First Appeal No.283 of 2022 16 chargesheeted, however, the vehicle could not be traced out. Of course, it is true that there was a delay of about five months on the part of the Complainant in informing and lodging its claim before the Insurance Company, nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the Insurance Company has not repudiated the claim on the ground that it was not genuine. It has repudiated only on the ground of delay. When the Complainant had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle, and when the police after the investigation had arrested the accused and also filed challan before the concerned Court, and when the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft."
18. The other ground of repudiation was that the Complainant had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle, as he had left the truck unattended for 10 days, which was violative of Condition No.5 of the policy.
19. As per the version of the Complainant, during the period of November/December, 2016, due to demonetization, there was heavy slump in the business of transport and due to that reason, the vehicle was parked at a safe parking place near the office of the Complainant on 15.12.2016. Said parking area was a part and parcel of the Truck Union, where a number trucks were used to be parked in routine. On 26.12.2016, the Complainant on reaching his office found that the truck was missing from said place, where it was parked on 15.12.2016. It is a matter of common knowledge that during the period of demonetization policy, which was declared by the Govt. of India on 08.11.2016, there was great impact on the public and there was lack of funds/money due to ceasing/stoppage of certain currency notes. The withdrawal of currency notes from ATMs and Bank was also very limited and long queues were normally seen in front of the ATMs and First Appeal No.283 of 2022 17 the Banks. Therefore, the version of the Complainant that due to demonetization policy, there was heavy slump in the business appears to be correct and believable and due that reason, the truck was parked at the authorized parking place for the Truck Union.
20. Further, it was mentioned in the Survey Report dated 03.07.2017 (Ex.R-13) that the surveyor had visited the site of theft and had also taken the photographs and collected the required information. It was reported that in routine, all the transporters usually/normally parked their vehicles in the same manner as the insured vehicle was parked in a locked condition. It was also mentioned in the Survey Report that there was proper arrangement of parking. It was a hustle- bustle and busy area and the possibility of theft was very rare. The RC of the vehicle and the driving licence were verified and the same were found to be valid and genuine. Even the keys of the vehicle were also submitted by the Complainant. It is not the case of the OPs that the Complainant had left the keys inside the vehicle. The vehicle was not parked at an isolated place but it was parked at an authorized parking of the Truck Union. Said place was a busy place and was usually surrounded persons/drivers etc., as was reported by the surveyor in his report. Therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle was left unattended and as such there was no violation of Condition No.5 of the terms and conditions of the policy.
First Appeal No.283 of 2022 18
21. So far as the other ground of repudiation that the Complainant had failed to supply the required documents is concerned, similar issue arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurmel Singh v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2022 INSC 618. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:
"4.1: In the present case, the insurance company has become too technical while settling the claim and has acted arbitrarily. The Appellant has been asked to furnish the documents which were beyond the control of the Appellant to procure and furnish. Once, there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the Truck was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle the claim on non-submission of the duplicate certified copy of certificate of registration, which the Appellant could not produce due to the circum stances beyond his control. In many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds. While settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.
22. In view of the above reasons as well as the facts and circumstances and also the law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is apparent that the claim of the Complainant was wrongly and illegally repudiated. Immediate intimation of the theft of the truck was given to the Insurance Company as well as to the police and the incident theft was also found to be genuine. The insured truck was not recovered and the Unraced Report submitted by the police was also accepted by the competent authority. The vehicle was parked at the authorized parking place of the Truck Union and there was no lapse on the part of the Complainant. The Complainant is entitled to First Appeal No.283 of 2022 19 full sum insured i.e. IDV of the insured vehicle. The District Commission had ignored all these facts and circumstances and had partly allowed the Complaint by awarding only 50% of the claim on sub-standard basis. Even the interest has been awarded on lower side i.e. 6% and that too from the date of filing of the Complaint. The interest was required to be awarded from the date of repudiation of the claim and not from the date of filing of the Complaint. Even the litigation expenses ₹5,000/- are also on the lower side. The claim of the Complainant has been proved to be genuine and he has faced the litigation before the District Commission as well as before this Commission. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be modified.
23. Accordingly, finding force in the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant, the Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the District Commission is modified and the Respondents/OPs are directed to pay the insurance claim of ₹10,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 19.02.2018 till its realization and also to pay ₹25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the Complainant. The compliance of the order shall be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. First Appeal No.283 of 2022 20
24. Since the main case has been disposed off, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed off.
25. The Appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER June 24, 2024.
(Gurmeet S)