State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sangeeta Singh on 29 November, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 29.11.2007 Appeal No. 422/03 (Arising out of Order dated 15.03.2003 passed by the District Consumer Forum, CSC, Saini Enclave, Delhi in Case No. 621/2000) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant Regional Office No.2, Through 5th Floor, Kailash Building, Mr. Anil Kumar K.G. Marg, New Delhi. Shrivastava, Advocate Versus Ms. Sangeeta Singh Respondent W/o Sh. Sailesh Kr. Singh, R/0 7C, DDA Flats, Anand Vihar, Delhi. 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 15.03.2003 the appellant-company has been directed to pay Rs. 2 lacs i.e. towards damage to the vehicle insured with it as assessed by their own surveyor alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. and further compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs.500/- as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The allegations of the respondent leading to the impugned order, in brief, were that vehicle No. DL-2CN 4808 Maruti car insured with the appellant vide Cover Note No. 106685 for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- on payment of Rs. 7,941/- as a premium. The vehicle met with an accident at about 2.30 a.m. in the night intervening 14.06.2000 and 15.06.2000 while coming from Gopalganj, Bihar to Delhi. Report of the accident was registered with PS Garh Mukteshwar, Ghaziabad on 15.06.2000 itself. Occupants of the car received injuries and were admitted to the hospital and the vehicle remained unattended at the spot as no steps were taken by the Police for the safe custody thereof and the respondent on being discharged from the hospital on 17.06.2000 went to the site of accident and found that all the important machinery was removed from the car. Intimation was again given to the concerned Police on 17.06.2000 and the appellant was also informed about the incident. The claim was rejected and hence the present complaint praying for the directions to the opposite party to pay the claimed amount in addition to the cost and compensation. Respondent has filed in evidence the copies of the relevant documents and the affidavits.
3. On the other hand, the appellant has in its defence pleaded that only an intimation was given to the police and no FIR was lodged. The respondent just abandoned the vehicle unattended resulting in theft of parts and as such was negligent having not taken proper care. The surveyor was duly appointed who inspected and submitted the report but due to the fact that the respondent failed to submit the copy of the FIR and also due to the fact that the name of the driver in the claim and the intimation to the police were different and further that the respondent was negligent in leaving the vehicle unattended on the road, the claim was rejected. Copy of the relevant documents including the report of the surveyor has been placed on record by the appellant. The surveyor in its report had submitted that the car had covered a distance of 2367.5 k.m. till the accident and at the time the loss was estimated its value was approximately Rs. 2 lacs. Since no proof of theft of parts had been provided by the insured and further that safeguarding the vehicle was a primary duty of the insured, it was left to the insurance company i.e. the appellant to decide about the quantum of liability.
The appellant for the reasons stated above denied the claim.
4. The impugned order has been assailed firstly on the ground that it was the primary duty of the insured to keep the vehicle in safe custody before going to the hospital and was required to intimate the insurance company immediately and further that the surveyor only recommended the payment of Rs. 85,000/- whereas the District Forum has awarded Rs.2 lacs.
5. None of the aforesaid contentions hold water.
Whenever a person suffers injuries in an accident of a vehicle, the first thing is to go to the hospital and to get himself treated. Lodging a report with the police station or sending intimation to the insurance company immediately are insignificant or of no relevance. It is only when the insured gets well and is in a position to move that he is expected to take these measures.
6. What is relevant and significant for adjudicating the claim of the insured is the fact whether the vehicle had met with an accident or not and whether at the time of surveyors inspection the vehicle was found to have suffered some damages correctly or not and whether the surveyor has assessed the damages or not. No other fact is relevant. In such type of cases, little delay in intimating the insurance company or even lodging the report with the police cannot jeopardize the interests of the consumer against the insurance contract.
6. As regards the quantum of loss, the finding of fact returned by the District Forum, there is no infirmity and is liable to be accepted.
7. On the aforesaid premise, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.
8. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
9. 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.
10. Announced on 29th day of November, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc