State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Naresh Kumar vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 20 August, 2020
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 18.08.2020
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 20.08.2020
FIRST APPEAL NO. 620/2017
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. NARESH KUMAR ......APPELLANT
VERSUS
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ......RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, (MEMBER)
Present: PRAMOD KR. TIWARY, Counsel for Appellant.
RAJNESH KUMAR, Counsel for Respondent.
PER: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
[Via Video Conferencing]
1. The present appeal has been filed by Sh. Gopal Tomar, holding a Special Power of attorney executed by Mr. Naresh Kumar, the registered owner of the car in question. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum are as follows:
"The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle Maruti Alto LX BS IV, bearing registration No.PB03X167 which was duly insured FA 620/2017 Page 1 of 6 with O.P vide policy No.31260031130101135484 for the period effective from 24.11.2013 to 23.11.2014 and paid a premium of Rs.5,290/-. It is alleged that the said vehicle is kept in the custody of the his brother in law Sh. Gopal Tomar. It is further alleged that the in the night of 20.11.2014 the said car of the complainant was parked by Sh. Gopal Tomar, at A-64, Gali No.7, Jagat Puri, Shahadara, Delhi. It is alleged that when he woke up on the next morning i.e. on 21.11.2014 and went near place where he had parked the car, he did not find the said car, he got alarmed and began searching his car. It is further alleged that the said car was thoroughly searched by Sh. Gopal Tomar from and near the location where it had been parked but was not found. Hence on the unfortunate intervening night of 20/21.11.2014 the above said care of the complainant was stolen by unidentified persons, which was parked in Gali No.7, Jagatpuri, Delhi. It is alleged that Sh. Gopal Tomar immediately informed the police on 21.11.2014 on No.100 and investigation was done by HC Dilbag Singh of P.S. Mansarovar Park, Delhi and FIR was duly registered with regard to the stolen vehicle vide FIR No.678 dated 23.11.2014 in P.S. Mansarovar Park, Delhi. It is further alleged that Sh. Gopal Tomar duly informed the O.P about said incident through the insurance agent of the O.P from where he was getting the renewal of insurance of the car of the complainant on 23.11.2014 and showed FIR. It is alleged that the insurance agent of the O.P gave the mobile number of the Officer of O.P who was incharge of CLAIM DEPARTMENT Prem Singh (9968266048) who was then posted in O.P's office at Daryaganj. It is further alleged that several calls were made to the O.P on the mobile number of Sh. Prem Singh on 23.11.2014 but he did not pick the call of Sh. Gopal Tomar. It is alleged the SMS regarding vehicle theft was provided by Gopal Tomar to Prem Singh on his mobile number. It is further alleged that there was marriage ceremony FA 620/2017 Page 2 of 6 of Gopal Tomar's brother on 15.12.2014 due to which he was not able to meet personally with Mr. Prem Singh regarding insurance claim. Thereafter Sh. Gopal Tomar visited the office of O.P on 22.12.2014 to meet Sh. Prem Singh, who was working in the O.P office and explained about the sequence of attempt to interact with him. It is alleged that a surveyor was appointed by the O.P who visited the place where complainant's vehicle was parked and stolen on the intervening night of 20/21.11.2014. It is further alleged that the surveyor collected original documents, RC, insurance policy and original keys with the assurance that claim will be passed shortly. It is alleged that untraced report from the court has been handed over to the O.P on 06.04.2015. It is further alleged that surprisingly the O.P unilaterally vide letter dated 04.06.2015 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the false and wrong ground stating that "you have informed the company after about one month from the alleged theft." It is alleged that Sh. Gopal Tomar visited the office of O.P and requested them to reconsider the decision, but the O.P did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. The complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 25.07.2015 but to no avail. On these facts complainant prays that O.P to pay the IDV amount (insurance declared value) of the vehicle for a sum of Rs.1,62,772/- and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed."
2. Vide this appeal, the appellant impugns the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the District Forum, North wherein it has been held as under:
"5. The real controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the complainant is entitled to the claim amount sought in this complaint or not. The dispute lies in narrow campus. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the present complaint was stolen from the FA 620/2017 Page 3 of 6 area of Jagat Puri, Shahadara, Delhi on the intervening night of 20/21.11.2014. The intimation of theft was duly given to the Local Police on 21.11.2014 on No.100 and investigation was assigned to HC Dilbag Singh of P.S. Mansarovar Park, Delhi, however, the FIR was registered on 23.11.2014. It has also come on record that one Mr. Gopal Tomar, who had parked the vehicle in Jagatpuri, Shahadara, Delhi. Made several attempts to inform insurance agent Mr. Prem Singh on his mobile No.9968266048 on 23.11.2014 but who did not pick up the phone. Since, there was marriage ceremony of said Gopal Tomar's brother on 15.12.2014, so he visited the office of O.P on 22.12.2014 to meet Prem Singh and accordingly informed him. It has also come on record that the claim of complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 04.06.2015 by the O.P on the ground that O.P company was informed about theft of vehicle after about one month and thereby violated the conditions of the policy by not immediately informing the O.P about theft. Now the question arises as to whether O.P was informed by complainant about theft of vehicle as per terms and conditions of the policy. The answer is in the negative. The word 'immediately' as indicated in the terms and conditions of the policy would mean that O.P should be informed about theft of vehicle within 24 hours of the incident of theft. Obviously, the insurance company this case was not informed as per terms and conditions rather was informed after long delay of 31 days......."
3. The perusal of the order of the District Forum reflects that the only ground on which the claim was repudiated by the insurance company i.e. the respondent delayed in giving intimation about the theft of the insured vehicle to the respondent. The issue of delay in intimation to the Insurance Company is no more res integra and has been recently FA 620/2017 Page 4 of 6 adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported at AIR 2020 SC 1395 wherein it has been held as under:
"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."
4. In FA 657/2017 titled Manoj Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., we had the opportunity to discuss the aforesaid dicta of the Apex Court in detail, wherein it was held as under:
"11. In light of the decision of the Apex Court in the Gurshinder Singh (supra) as well as evidence produced before us in the form of the untraced report prepared by the police and findings from the report of insurance surveyor, we conclude that the repudiation of claim of the appellant by the respondent was wrong and unjustified. The claim of the appellant was merely repudiated based on a hyper technical ground. We therefore set aside the impugned order passed by the district forum (central)."
5. Applying the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the present case, we are of the considered view that the repudiation of the claim on the sole ground of delay in intimation to the respondent cannot sustain.
6. Consequently, the order dated 30.08.2017 authored by Sh. K. S. Mohi, President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North is set aside. The respondent is FA 620/2017 Page 5 of 6 directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,62,772/- being the insured amount along with interest as per the following arrangement:
A. An interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from 04.06.2015 being the date on which the claim was repudiated till 19.08.2020 being the date of order, in case the amount is paid by 19.09.2020;
B. In case the OP fails to refund the amount as per clause (A), an interest @ 7% p.a. calculated from 04.06.2015 till the actual realization of the amount.
7. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the respondent is directed to pay a sum of A. Rs. 50,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment to the complainants;
B. And the litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/- as prayed for.
8. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
9. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (ANIL SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER Pronounced On:
20.08.2020 FA 620/2017 Page 6 of 6