State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Co. vs Sandeep Sharma on 22 April, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No : 185 of 2015
Date of Institution: 02.03.2015
Date of Decision: 22.04.2015
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Above AXIS Bank, G.T.
Road, Panipat.
2. General Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Registered Office A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi - 110002.
Both through Sh. S.P. Singh, Regional Manager, The Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, LIC Building, IInd Floor,
Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt.
Appellants-Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Sandeep Sharma son of Sh. Ram Nath Sharma, resident of Village and
Post Office Kabri, Tehsil and District Panipat.
Respondent-Complainant
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.
Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.
Present: Mr. D.C. Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sunil Polist, Advocate for the respondent-
complainant.
ORDER
NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By filing this appeal, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited- opposite parties (for short 'Insurance Company') has challenged the order dated January 23rd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (for short 'District Forum'), Panipat, whereby, it directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.65,570/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, June 04th, 2014 2 till its actual realization and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses on account of theft of a Motorcycle No.HR06V--0753 of Sandeep Sharma-complainant.
2. Complainant got his motorcycle insured with the Insurance Company for the period April 28th, 2011 to April 27th, 2012 vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-1. On November 18th, 2011 the motorcycle was stolen. First Information Report No.775, under Section 379 IPC (Exhibit C-7) was lodged on November 25th, 2011 with Police Station Model Town, Panipat. The complainant submitted his claim with the Insurance Company but it was not settled.
3. In reply, Insurance Company denied the averments made in the complaint and pleaded that the theft took place on November 18 th, 2011, F.I.R was lodged on November 25 th, 2011 and the Insurance Company was informed on December 02 nd, 2011. So, as per terms and conditions No.1 of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant. As such claim of the complainant was closed as 'No Claim'.
4. Indisputably, motorcycle of the complainant was stolen. F.I.R was recorded. Intimation to the Insurance Company was given. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor, who in his report (Annexure A) has clearly stated that the motorcycle was stolen. Since it is an admitted fact that motorcycle was stolen, so, repudiation of genuine claim of the complainant on the grounds of delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company and lodging of F.I.R, was not justified. Moreover, it has been specifically mentioned by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority in its circular dated September 20 th, 2011 that there may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer 3 can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim of the claimant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine.
5. Since Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the motorcycle was Rs.51,000/-, so awarding Rs.65,570/- by the District Forum was not justifiable.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company shall pay Rs.51,000/-, that is, Insured Declared Value of the motorcycle, to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, June 04 th, 2014 till its actual payment and the remaining amount Rs.2200/- awarded by the District Forum.
7. The complainant is directed to execute the letter of subrogation, hand over the keys of the motorcycle and transfer the Registration Certificate in the name of the Insurance Company and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose.
8. The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced (Diwan Singh Chauhan) (B.M. Bedi) (Nawab Singh) 22.04.2015 Member Judicial Member President U.K