State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. vs Hitech Associates on 6 November, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 779 of 2016 Date of Institution: 26.08.2016 Date of Decision : 06.11.2017 United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Deputy Manager (Consumer), Chandigarh. Appellant-Opposite Party Versus M/s Hiteck Associates, Naraingarh Road, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City, through its Proprietor/Partner. Respondent-Complainant CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.
Argued by: Shri V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for appellant. Shri Ranjan Arora, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
United India Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated July 29th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short 'the District Forum') in Complaint No.41 of 2013.
2. M/s Hiteck Associates, Naraingarh Road, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City-complainant, a partnership firm being registered owner of car (Swift-Maruti) bearing registration No.HR-01-X-5151, got insured the same with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the Insurance Company')-Opposite Party/appellant, regarding the period from March 11th, 2012 up to March 10th, 2013 vide Insurance Policy bearing No.1101023111P002237279 (Annexure C-1) mentioning total Insured Declared Value (IDV) as Rs.2,90,000/-. On March 13th, 2012, Paras Chhabra-driver parked the above mentioned vehicle at the backside of P.V.R. GG-1 Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. On March 16th, 2012 in the morning, the above mentioned vehicle was not found at the parking place as the same had been stolen by some unknown person. First Information Report (FIR) No.70 (Annexure C-2) was lodged in Police Station West Delhi on March 16th, 2013 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant lodged claim with the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company did not pay the claim amount to the complainant.
3. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum with a prayer that the opposite party-Insurance Company be directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,90,000/-, that is, the IDV of the car vehicle to the complainant; to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony and an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
4. The Opposite Party-Insurance Company in its written version has taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant has concealed material facts from the District Forum. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as the opposite party was informed regarding theft of the vehicle on April 11th, 2012. Moreover, the opposite party had written a letter dated May 26th, 2013 to the complainant to show any receipt of toll tax, petrol filling cash memo or any other proof to confirm that the vehicle was being used by the complainant. One more letter was addressed to the complainant on June 18th, 2013 to clarify regarding loss of vehicle. The opposite party did not take needed precautions at the time of parking of the vehicle and gave an open invitation for theft of the vehicle. The complainant also caused delay in lodging First Information Report (FIR) also. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.
5. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.
6. After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated July 29th, 2016 the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- as compensation on account of loss caused due to theft of the vehicle with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint; to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony; to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of punitive damages and an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
7. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated July 29th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant-opposite party has filed the present appeal bearing No.779 of 2016 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
9. During the course of arguments there was no controversy of any type that the complainant is the registered owner of car vehicle bearing registration No.HR-01X-5151 and same was got insured with the opposite party vide insurance policy Annexure C-1 regarding the period March 11th, 2012 to March 10th, 2013 mentioning total Insured Declared Value (IDV) as Rs.2,90,000/-. Admittedly, FIR No.70 (Annexure C-2) was lodged in Police Station West Delhi on March 16th, 2013 under Section 379 I.P.C. regarding theft of the vehicle. The complainant lodged FIR immediately and there is no un-necessary delay in lodging FIR. As per version of the complainant, the above mentioned vehicle was parked on March 13th, 2012 in the parking at the backside of P.V.R. GG-1 Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi and the driver of the complainant noticed on March 16th, 2012 that the car vehicle had been stolen by some unknown person from the parking place. It is admitted fact that the stolen car vehicle could not be traced and recovered during investigation. As theft of the stolen vehicle came to the notice of the complainant on March 16th, 2012 in the morning hours, findings cannot be given that the vehicle was stolen on March 13th, 2012 or sometimes prior to March 16th, 2012. As and when theft of the vehicle came to the knowledge of the complainant, he immediately informed the police in this regard. In this way, prayer of the complainant cannot be declined on account of delay in lodging FIR.
10. Complainant firm in its complaint has taken plea that the opposite party was informed regarding theft of the car vehicle without mentioning date, month and year. The opposite party has taken plea in its written version that information regarding theft of the car vehicle was received vide letter dated April 11th, 2012. In the copy of letter dated April 11th, 2012 (Annexure R/2) also date of information regarding theft of the vehicle to the opposite party in writing, is mentioned as April 11th, 2012. In this way, situation is clear that the opposite party received information regarding theft of the insured car vehicle in writing first time on April 11th, 2012. Learned counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments urged that in fact as and when the complainant came to know regarding theft of the insured vehicle, FIR was lodged on the same date. In the beginning, the complainant remained busy to trace the stolen car vehicle and was hopeful that the stolen car may be recovered during investigation by the police. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that soon after the information was given to the opposite party telephonically but information to the opposite party in writing was given on April 11th, 2012. On the other side, learned counsel for the opposite party has denied that any such information was received by the insurance company-opposite party telephonically prior to April 11th, 2012.
11. Learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy (Annexure R-3), the insured was required to inform the Insurance Company-opposite party immediately soon after theft of the vehicle was committed. As the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company has committed no mistake in repudiating the insurance claim of the complainant.
12. Although it is mentioned in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy that the insured is required to inform the Insurance Company immediately as and when any such incident of theft or damage to the vehicle is caused but frankly speaking, it does not appear that this condition is mentioned in the insurance policies to give opportunity to the insurer for investigation and to trace the stolen vehicle. It appears that main purpose of inserting this clause in the insurance policy is that the Insurance Company should start taking steps regarding calculation of the insurance claim and to make efforts to bring into light if the insured or any other person was willing to grab money from the Insurance Company by submitting false insurance claim. Frankly speaking, we are dealing with such type of matters for the last so many years but even in a single case it did not come to our notice that the Insurance Company might have been able to do investigation better than the local police or might have been successful in tracing the stolen vehicle. Moreover, immediate information may be helpful in accident cases when the insured vehicle is damaged, to assess properly and efficiently, the total loss caused to the vehicle and actual situation by spot inspection if the incident took place due to fault of some other person or due to fault of the insured himself. In theft cases, we feel investigation work done by the Insurance Company is not so much useful.
13. On this point of controversy, learned counsel for the complainant has placed his reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh while deciding Civil Writ Petition No.9716 of 2011 titled as " National Insurance Company, Gurgaon Versus Ravi Dutt Sharma and another" decided on May 30th, 2011. Findings of the Hon'ble High Court in case law referred above are as under:-
"I have my doubts whether the Insurance Company can act as a super investigator once the complaint was lodged with the police about the theft. The responsibility to investigate or to ascertain the cause of theft or whether it was there or not would really be that of the police. Merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform the petitioner-company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim. Lok Adalat has rightly appreciated this aspect and has negated the plea raised by the petitioner Insurance Company on the ground that the respondent-insured had immediately informed the police about the theft and hence the delay would be immaterial in such cases. The Insurance Companies, in my view, are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium. Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other. The conditions of the Insurance agreements are so minutely printed that a person gets hardly any time to go through such conditions to make it legally binding in any appropriate manner."
14. Under condition No.1 of the insurance policy (Annexure R-5), it is mentioned in last three lines that 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 co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender. In these circumstances, we feel no hesitation in making observation that some delay in submitting information to the Insurance Company regarding theft of the insured vehicle is not likely to cause any prejudice to the insurance company.
15. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party (Insurance Company) also argued that the complainant could not give any proof regarding existence and possession of the car vehicle by the complainant from March 10th, 2012 up to March 13th, 2012. A letter Annexure R-3 was also sent to the complainant on May 26th, 2013 requiring him to inform the insurance company, mode of payment of premium made with amount and also confirming to whom it was paid for asserting the liability as per policy. It is admitted fact that the insurance policy was provided by the opposite party-Insurance Company regarding the period from March 10th, 2012 up to March 09th, 2013. Copy of the Insurance Policy has been adduced in evidence by the opposite party as Annexure R-5. The insurance policy has been issued and provided regarding the relevant period. It is quite strange that the United India Insurance Company Limited itself issued the insurance policy and later on when the complainant submitted insurance claim, wanted information from the complainant regarding mode of payment of the premium amount and as to whether the vehicle was produced before any officer of the Insurance Company for verification. We feel the opposite party should seek this information from the concerned officers and officials of the Insurance Company and not from the complainant. Such type of clever and technical tactics used by the Insurance Company to repudiate genuine insurance claim of the insured persons cannot be appreciated. It was the duty of the officers of the Insurance Company to verify existence of the vehicle and to receive payment of the premium amount before issuance of the insurance policy. If there would have been any such lapse, certainly the Insurance Company would have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the officers and officials of the Insurance Company. In these circumstances, we feel much discussion is not needed and findings can be safely given that the insurance policy was validly renewed mentioning date of commencement as March 10th, 2012 and theft of the insured vehicle was committed during the insurance period.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company has argued that insurance claim of the complainant cannot be accepted on the basis of Circular Ref: IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/ CIR/ 216/ 09/ 2011 dated September 20th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short 'IRDA'), as discussed in earlier part of this order. In this case, the complainant could not explain the delay in submitting information to the Insurance Company regarding theft of the insured vehicle. In support of his this contention, learned counsel for the Insurance Company-opposite party placed his reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi while deciding Revision Petition No.3765 of 2014 titled as "National Insurance Company Limited versus Sukram Pal" decided on January 14th, 2015 as well as Revision Petition No.2951 of 2011, titled as Revision Petition No.2951 of 2011 "Rahul Tanwar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited" decided on November 09th, 2012.
17. We have closely perused the above cited case laws. Facts and circumstances of the case in hand are somewhat different from the facts and circumstances of the above cited case laws. In case law referred above National Insurance Company Limited versus Sukram Pal (Supra), findings were given by the Hon'ble National Commission as under:-
"6. It would, thus, be seen that even the aforesaid circular enjoins upon the insurance companies to settle genuine claims when there is a delay in intimating the loss to them due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, in a case where the complainant is unable to give convincing explanation for the delay in intimating the loss of the vehicle to the insurance company, the aforesaid circular would not ipso facto apply."
18. It has been made clear by the Hon'ble National Commission that in case where the complainant is unable to give convincing explanation for the delay in intimating the loss of the vehicle to the Insurance Company, the aforesaid circular would not ifso facto apply. In that case findings were given against the insured and in favour of the Insurance Company because there was unexplained delay of more than a period of six months in submitting information to the Insurance Company regarding theft of the insured vehicle. As per facts and circumstances of this case, after two days from the date of occurrence, the complainant had informed the Insurance Company telephonically. Thereafter, the complainant could submit required information to the Insurance Company in writing on April 11th, 2012 after 28 days from the date of commitment of theft. Earlier complainant remained busy to make efforts with the hope that the stolen vehicle will be traced with the help of the police. It will also be pertinent to mention here that after April 11th, 2012 also, except issuance of one or two letters to the complainant, the Insurance Company did not take even a single step to make any effort to trace the stolen vehicle or to help the Police to collect evidence to get the accused arrested and convicted. In view of this, the case law referred above, National Insurance Company Limited versus Sukram Pal (Supra), is of not much help to the Insurance Company-opposite party in this case.
19. Similarly, facts and circumstances of case law referred above, Rahul Tanwar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Supra), are also quite different from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. As per facts of case law referred above, there was delay of six days in lodging FIR after theft of the insured vehicle. Moreover, the complainant could not produce any evidence that the Insurance Company was informed regarding commitment of theft of the vehicle before lodging FIR or thereafter. In this way, case law referred above is also of no help to the opposite party in this case.
20. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, it stands proved that the insured car vehicle bearing registration No.HR-01X-5151 was stolen during the insurance period and the sum assured was mentioned in the insurance policy (Annexure C-1) as Rs.2,90,000/-. Complainant had to face un-necessary harassment, mental agony and loss of income. The complainant also had to spent lot of money in this litigation un-necessarily due to faults and negative mindset of the Insurance Company. We find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum awarding an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- as the total loss caused to the complainant on account of theft of the insured vehicle; an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony and an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Accordingly, the impugned order dated July 29th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum is upheld and the appeal stands dismissed.
21. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced 06.11.2017 Diwan Singh Chauhan Member Balbir Singh Judicial Member Nawab Singh President CL