State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Satinder Kumar on 2 February, 2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH. Appeal Case No. 242 of 2011 Date of institution: 12.09.2011 Date of decision : 02.02.2012 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through its Chief Regional Manager. . Appellant Versus Satinder Kumar s/o Sh.B.N. Singh, R/o H.No.5327, Cat-I, Manimajra Housing Complex, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh. .. Respondent. Appeal U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 QUORUM : Justice Sham Sunder, President Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member
Sh.Jagroop Singh Mahal, Member Present: Sh.Parminder Singh,Advocate, proxy for Sh.Paul S.Saini,Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Hitender Kansal, Advocate for the respondent.
Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.8.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties as under ;
The OPs are directed to jointly & severally pay the following amounts to the complainant :
(i) Rs.2,74,940/- being the insured declared value of the vehicle.
(ii)pay Rs.7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the opposite parties shall jointly & severally be liable to pay Rs.2,74,940/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 13.9.2010 till the date of actual payment besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant (now respondent) , being the registered owner of Indica Car No.CH-04-A-6013, got the same comprehensively insured for the insured declared value of Rs.2,74,940/- , for the period from 28.8.2009 to 27.8.2010. On 21.11.2009, a colleague of the complainant, borrowed the car alongwith driver, for his personal visit. When the car was being brought back, the driver offered lift to some boys, who represented themselves to be the students of a Chandigarh College. After some distance, the driver stopped the car near an eatery (Dhaba) for urination.
The keys were left, in the ignition, and the car was in starting condition. Taking advantage, the boys sped away with the car. The driver informed the complainant. Intimation was given to Police Station, Division No.7 (Vardhman), Ludhiana, the very next day. After intensive interrogation, and verification of the facts, the police registered F.I.R. No.286, dated 01.12.2009 (Annexure C-2). The complainant also informed the Insurance Company, and lodged his claim, seeking indemnification of loss of the vehicle, due to theft. The opposite parties, however, unnecessarily delayed the settlement of claim, even after the receipt of report of the approved Investigator, appointed by them. When the opposite parties, failed to indemnify the loss, pay interest and compensation to the complainant, even after a long delay of the submission of claim, which act on their part, amounted to gross deficiency, in rendering service, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him.
3. The Opposite Parties, in their written version, stated that the complainant had not complied with the terms & conditions of the insurance policy Annexure R-1, in as much as, he lodged the F.I.R. after 10 days, and not immediately after the theft of car.
It was further stated that the driver of the vehicle had acted in a grossly negligent manner, by giving lift to unknown persons, and then leaving the vehicle in running condition, with the key in the ignition. It was further stated that even intimation of loss/theft of the vehicle was not given to the opposite party, immediately, after the occurrence, which amounted to violation of the terms & conditions of the aforesaid policy. It was further stated that the process for approval of repudiation of claim, was underway, when the complainant filed the complaint. It was further stated that since the loss, occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the complainant, and the terms and conditions of the policy, referred to above, were also violated, the complainant was not entitled to any indemnification, or the relief claimed by him.
It was denied that the opposite parties were deficient, in rendering service. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong
4. The parties led evidence, in support their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties , and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/ opposite party No.2.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8. The Counsel for the appellant/ opposite party No.2, submitted that, no doubt, the car, in question, was insured by the complainant with the opposite parties, for the insured declared value of Rs.2,74,940/-, but after the loss, the FIR was not lodged immediately, but after 10 days, as a result whereof, the opposite parties were deprived of the opportunity of getting the matter properly investigated. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. In para No.4 of the complaint, it was in clear-cut terms, stated by the complainant, that after the theft of the car, the driver intimated him. It was further stated, in this paragraph, that the complainant asked the driver to wait for him there, and, in the meanwhile, report the matter to the nearby Police Station. However, due to immaturity and lack of knowledge, instead of going to the Police Station, he came back to Chandigarh. It was further stated, in para No.4, that on the next morning, the complainant alongwith his driver, visited the concerned Police Station, and reported the matter. The factum of reporting of loss of the vehicle, immediately to the Police Station, is further evident from annexure C-3, legal notice dated 19.6.2010, sent by the complainant, to the opposite parties, to which, no reply was sent by them. Not only this, it is evident from annexure R2, the report dated 23.2.2010 of the approved Investigator, appointed by the Insurance Company, that the delay in registration of the FIR occurred, due to intensive investigation, and interrogation of the driver, a number of times. However, later on, with the intervention of the SSP/DSP, the FIR was registered by the Police Station. The complainant, and his driver, could only make a report, regarding theft, to the police. The police has its own ways, to act in the matter. It is a matter of common knowledge, that, in the first instance, the Police normally does not immediately register the FIR, on the basis of the report, made by a person, regarding theft. It is only after intensive interrogation of the suspects or even the complainant and investigation of the matter, though not permissible, that the FIR is registered in a theft case. In the instant case, the version set up by the complainant in para No.4 of the complaint, as also in the legal notice C3, that the loss of vehicle was reported to the Police Station, on the next day, but on account of intensive interrogation of the driver and investigation, and with the intervention of the SSP/DSP, that the FIR was registered by the concerned Police Station is corroborated from R2 the report of the Investigator. Therefore, there was no fault, on the part of the complainant, in reporting the matter, to the Police, immediately. If the police did not act immediately, on the information, supplied by the complainant, and his driver, on the next day of the loss of the vehicle, by registering the FIR, then only it (police) could be blamed. There was, therefore, no violation of any condition of the Policy annexure R1, on the part of the complainant, or his driver. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
9. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the Insurance Company was intimated, in regard to the loss of the vehicle after a long delay, as a result whereof, it was deprived of the opportunity of getting the matter investigated, at its level, in a proper manner. This submission of the Counsel for the appellant, also does not appear to be correct. In the legal notice C3, the complainant stated that he informed the opposite parties, on the same day, regarding the loss of the vehicle. This factum is further corroborated from R2, the report of the approved Investigator appointed by the opposite parties, as in para No.7, it was, in so many words, stated by the Investigator that the particulars of the FIR were found to be correct, as per discussion with the SHO/IO of Police Station, Division No.7(Vardhman), District Ludhiana. In this report, the investigator did not advise the opposite parties that the claim was liable to be repudiated, as the complainant did not intimate the Insurance Company immediately, after the loss of the vehicle. In case, the contents of the legal notice were incorrect, then reply could be sent by the opposite parties, to the same. There is another report of the same investigator dated 7.5.2010, annexure R3.
Even, in this report, the investigator did not state that the claim was liable to be repudiated, on the ground, that intimation, with regard to the loss was not given to the Insurance Company immediately, and, as such, there was breach of condition No.1 of the Policy annexure R1. The opposite parties could not go against the reports R2 & R3 of their Investigator. Since the contents of the FIR were found to be correct, as per the report R2 of the Investigator and the oral intimation regarding the theft of vehicle, was given to the Insurance Company, on the date of incident, even if, intimation regarding the loss of vehicle, in writing, to the opposite parties, was given after the delay of about 8 days, as is evident from the Motor Claim Intimation, at page 247 of the District Forum file, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, that did not deprive them of getting the matter properly investigated, as the Police was already investigating the case. Under these circumstances, the alleged breach of condition No.1 of the Policy, did not affect the merits of claim. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
10. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the driver of the vehicle, was highly negligent, in as much as, he gave lift to unknown persons and alighted therefrom for urination, by leaving the key in the ignition, and car in starting condition. He further submitted that, as such, reasonable care was not taken by the insured to safeguard the vehicle against loss and damage. This submission of the Counsel for the appellant, also does not appear to be correct. It was not a case, in which the driver left the ignition key inside, and went far away, for hours together, when the said vehicle, was not within his sight, and, in the meanwhile, the same was stolen by the miscreants. In the instant case, the driver of the vehicle, alighted from the vehicle, near an eatery (Dhaba)for urination. In this view of the matter, it can very well be said that the vehicle was within the sight of the driver, when he was urinating.
In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kamal Singhal IV(2010) CPJ297(NC), the driver, on his journey, picked up three persons. Those three persons took away the car when the driver went for answering the call of nature, by leaving the ignition key inside. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim, by relying on condition No.4 of the policy, as prevailing in the instant case. The National Commission held that the repudiation was illegal and invalid. It was further held that the driver was not expected to carry the key of the vehicle, with him, while getting down from the same, for answering the call of nature, particularly when the same was within his sight. In that case, similar defece was raised by the opposite party, but the same was negated by the District Forum, State Commission, as also the National Commission.
The principle of law, laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd.s case(supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, thus, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that since the claim of the complainant was, under process, and no repudiation letter had been sent to him, the complaint was not maintainable. It may be stated here, that the theft of car took place on 22.11.2009. As discussed above, the intimation of loss of the vehicle was given to the police, on the very next day. Intimation to the opposite parties, with regard to the loss of the same, was also given and the claim was lodged. The opposite parties appointed the Investigator, who gave his report annexure R2, dated 23.2.2010 and R3 dated 7.5.2010. The complainant also gave legal notice C3 dated 19.6.2010 for the settlement of claim. Even reminder dated 13.8.2010 C4, was sent by the complainant, to the opposite parties, for the settlement of his claim, but they failed to do so. For how long the complainant could wait for the settlement of his claim. According to Regulation 9.2 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders Interest) Regulations,2002, in no case shall a surveyor take more than six months from the date of his appointment to furnish his report. According to Regulation 9.3, if an insurer, on receipt of a survey report, finds that it is incomplete, in any respect, it shall require the surveyor, under intimation to the insured, to furnish an additional report on certain specific issues, as may be required by it. Such a request may be made by the insurer within 15 days of the receipt of original survey report. According to Regulation 9.5, on receipt of the survey report or the additional survey report, as the case may be, an insurer shall within a period of 30 days, offer a settlement of the claim, to the insured. If the insurer, for any reasons, to be recorded, in writing, and communicated to the insured, decides to reject a claim, under the policy, it shall do so, within a period of 30 days, from the receipt of the survey report, or the additional survey report, as the case may be. In the instant case, survey report R2 submitted by the investigator is dated 23.2.2010, whereas the additional survey report R3 is dated 7.5.2010. The opposite parties were required to settle the matter, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of additional survey report, but they did not do so. Even after the issuance of legal notice annexure C3 dated 19.6.2010, and reminder annexure C4 dated 13.8.2010, the claim was not settled. Ultimately, the complainant left with no alternative, had to file the complaint on 13.9.2010. The opposite parties, violated the aforesaid provisions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders Interest) Regulations,2002 by which they are governed, in the matter of settlement of claims. Non-settlement of claim, in accordance with the Regulations, referred to above, within the stipulated time, also amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, by the opposite parties. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
12. No other point, was urged by the Counsel for the parties.
13. The order impugned, rendered by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
Sd/-
Announced (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER) February 2,2012 President Sd/- (NEENA SANDHU) Member Sd/-
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) Member