State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Devinder Pal Singh on 19 December, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 19.12.2007 Appeal No. A-07/857 (Arising out of Order dated 26.09.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum(Central), Maharana Partap Bus Terminal, Mezzanine Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Case No.557/05) M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Appellant Having Its Registered Office at Through 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Mr. R.K. Tripathi, Fort, Mumbai - 400001. Advocate And also at: Divisional Office, CDU 311000, Keltron Chamber, 18/7, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. Versus Mr. Devinder Pal Singh Respondent S/o Sh. R.S. Bindra, R/o U 15/1-4, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)
1. Vide impugned order dated 26.09.2007 passed by the District Forum, the appellant-company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 01.03.2000 till the realization of the amount and to pay interest @ 9% on Rs. 3,90,000/- from 01.10.98 till February 2000(15 months in all) and a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation on account of total loss arising out of theft of the vehicle. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. Through this appeal, the impugned order has been assailed firstly on the ground that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and further the respondent was careless in parking the vehicle which is violation of Clause 4 and also delayed in intimating the appellant about the theft of the vehicle which is violation of Clause 1 of the term of the contract.
3. The case of the respondent leading to the impugned order was that he got Yamaha Motor cycle, 125 CC bearing No. HR-26-R-04-144 insured with appellant vide Policy No. 311000/31/03/02700. the IDV was for Rs. 40,000/-. The policy was valid from 29.12.03 to 28.12.04. On 04.07.04, the employee of the respondent friend took the vehicle to Aggarwal Sweet Avantika Market, Rohini to purchase some snacks. He parked the vehicle outside the shop. When the servant of the respondent came out, he found the vehicle was missing. The respondent and his friend as well as the driver of the vehicle at that time tried to trace the vehicle but could not find out the vehicle. Report was lodged with Police Station, Rohini u/s 379 IPC. The respondent informed the appellant on 02.08.04 but appellant is not settling the claim. He filed the instant complaint praying for directions to appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- i.e. IDV with interest, cost and compensation.
4. In its defence, the appellant averred that the vehicle was stolen on 04.07.2004 while the police report was lodged on 31.07.04 and respondent could not give satisfactory explanation for delay in lodging FIR and on receipt of the information the appellant appointed Investigator who found that the vehicle was stolen due to the carelessness of the respondent.
5. In our view FIR is not a requirement for adjudicating the insurance claim.
Whenever vehicle of an insured is stolen and he takes some time to search for the vehicle and goes to the Police Station, it is the discretion of the Police Officer to convert the complaint of the insured into the FIR or not. Information to the Police in any form including the DD report is sufficient requirement and the insurance company only is concerned whether the theft has taken place or not. Once the report is lodged with the police may be in any form, the insurance company is barred from appointing any Investigator to investigate into the fact whether the theft has taken place or not. It may appoint surveyor for any other purpose.
6. In this case even if the information was received late it was not a ground for rejection of the claim. The aforesaid clauses are of directory and not of mandatory nature. Sometimes the police does not straightaway register FIR as its first effort is to see that they are not burdened with investigating the crime. Investigation into a criminal offence like theft is the sole prerogative and statutory obligation of the police. Insurance company has to rely upon the report of the police pertaining to the result of investigation. It cannot undertake parallel investigation.
7. In such type of cases there may be some delay in informing the insurance company or in lodging the report as any person at first instance makes some effort to search for the vehicle. Person takes time and days to get over the shock and delay for few days for information to the company is not of factual consequence. In case of claim against theft of vehicle the concern of the Insurance Company should be whether theft has taken place or not and nothing beyond that. In case of doubt, the Insurance Company can call upon the insured to give indemnity bond besides other formalities of transfer of the registration certificate of the vehicle in favour of the insurance company.
8. The onus lies on the insurance company to show and prove the carelessness or the negligence of the insured and cannot pressure it. Whenever a person goes for some work after parking the vehicle, he cannot be so careless that he would leave it unlocked so as to invite the persons to take it away or to lodge a false claim with the insurance company. In the instant case no such onus has been discharged by the appellant.
9. Foregoing reasons pursued us to dismiss the appeal being devoid of merit.
10. The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
11. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
13. Announced on 19th day of December, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc