National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Trilok Singh vs Manager, Cholamandlam Ms General ... on 17 April, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2637 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 20/07/2016 in Appeal No. 503/2015 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) 1. TRILOK SINGH S/O. SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, R/O. WARD NO. 11, PUNJABI MOHALLA, KHURSIPUR, BHILAI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-DURG, CHHATTISGARH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MANAGER, CHOLAMANDLAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & 2 ORS. 2ND FLOOR, DEAR HOUSE, 2 N.S.C. BOS ROAD, CHENNAI-600001 2. NITESH DUBEY, CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEAR MOURYA TALKIJ, G.E. ROAD, BHILAI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-DURG, CHHATTISGARH 3. BRANCH MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., LOCAL OFFICE 1ST FLOOR, HINDUJA COMPLEX 22, PARAS NAGAR CHOWK, NEAR RAILWAY LINE, RAIPUR GANJ, RAIPUR CHHATTISGARH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Parolia, Advocate
With Mr. Zhaid Hussain, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 17 Apr 2018 ORDER
PER MR. PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.07.2016 of the State Commission passed in FA No. FA/2015/503.
2. The facts of the case are that the vehicle of the complainant / petitioner herein was insured by the Opposite party / respondents herein from 08.05.2013 to 07.05.2014. On 29/30.07.2013, at mid-night, the vehicle was stolen. The police was informed immediately and the FIR was registered on 02.08.2013 at P.S., Khursipar. As per the complainant, the Complainant informed the insurance company through the agent of the insurance company, who was available in the bank where the complainant went to give the information. There was no response from the insurance company, so the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, being complaint Case No.14/178. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties on the ground that the intimation to the insurance company was given with a delay of 38 days.
3. The District Forum, vide dated 10.08.2015, however, allowed the complaint and ordered the payment of insurance amount of Rs.5,50,000/-, jointly by the Opposite parties to the complainant.
4. The opposite parties 1 & 3 preferred an Appeal before the State Commission bearing No. FA/2015/503.
5. The State Commission allowed the appeal vide its order dated 20.07.2016 and dismissed the complaint by setting aside the order of the District Forum.
6. Hence the present revision petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there is no delay in giving intimation to the insurance company as the agent of the insurance company was informed on the same day when the information to police was given. The learned counsel further relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017, decided on 04.10.2017 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the insurance claim in a matter where the insurance company was informed after eight days of the incident. The learned counsel requested that the case is genuine and the police was timely informed. The police, after investigation has found the incident as true and has given the final report dated 16.12.2013 that the stolen vehicle could not be recovered and there was no chance of recovering the same in future, as well. Thus, the genuinity of the claim is evident. However, the genuine claim cannot be disallowed on the basis of only a technical point of delay.
8. I have carefully considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. It is seen that the FIR in the matter has been lodged on 02.08.2013 and the police has also filed their final report dated 16.12.2013. Here, the main question is about intimation given to the insurance company. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance, the insured party is supposed to intimate the incident immediately to the insurance company along with the police. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant informed the agent of the insurance company. Clearly, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the intimation was required to be given to the insurance company and not to its agent. This issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :-
"11. It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims 8which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act".
9. Even the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay of only eight days in giving the intimation to the insurance company when the Hon'ble Supreme Court was convinced on the explanation given for such delay.
10. In the present case, the complainant himself has stated that he had given intimation to the agent. The Opposite party in their written statement have clearly stated that intimation was given to the insurance company on 09.09.2013. There is a huge gap from the date of incident to the date of intimation to the insurance company. This delay, has caused the insurance company to forgo the right to appoint a Surveyor and to get the surveyor's report. In case of theft, the insurance company might have helped the police in investigation and in the recovery of the vehicle. However, this opportunity was lost due to delay in intimation. As no specific reason has been given except the fact that the information was given to the agent of the insurance company, deliberate delay in intimation to the insurance company cannot be ruled out.
11. Thus relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Om Praksash (Supra) and looking to the fact that there is such a huge delay of 42 days in giving intimation to the insurance company, I do not find this to be a fit case for interfering with the reasoned order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition No. 2637/2016 is dismissed in limine.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER