National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Siddhanth Yadav vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 30 July, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1782 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 06/04/2015 in Appeal No. 140/2015 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh) 1. SIDDHANTH YADAV S/O SHRI SAKATTAR YADAV R/O VILLAGE BHATWA, POLICE STATION,GARH, TEHSIL SIRMOUR, REWA MP ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REWA BRANCH,MAHARAJA HOTEL, ALLAHABAD ROAD, REWA MP ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : MR. VIKAS UPADHYAY For the Respondent :
Dated : 30 Jul 2015 ORDER REKHA GUPTA
Revision Petition no. 1782 of 2015 has been filed against the order dated 06.04.2015 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal ('the State Commission') in Appeal no. 140 of 2015.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner's Bolero vehicle no. MP 17 CA 1324 was registered with the respondent/ insurance company vide policy number 152702/31/2013/73 from 06.04.2012 to 05.04.2013. The said vehicle was parked in the front office of the Larsen and Turbo Company Ltd., house no. 158/1 Tagore House, Allahabad on 17.10.2012, from where it was stolen in the night. Information regarding the theft of the vehicle was given by the son of the petitioner - Mr Munish Kumar on 18.10.2012 to the police station Georgetown Allahabad and crime number 314/12 under section 379 IPC was registered with the police station. On 01.11.2012, the petitioner gave the information regarding the theft of the vehicle to the respondent office, about the vehicle not being traced and a final report was submitted before the CJM Allahabad. In spite of registration of the claim by the respondent and assurance of immediate payment of compensation amount, instead of paying the claimed amount the respondent insurance company rejected the payment of the claimed amount on 12.08.2013, due to which the petitioner suffered damage of Rs.1,50,000/- and has also undergone mental harassment. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for compensation of Rs.4,75,000/-.
3. The respondent/ opposite party - insurance company in their reply before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa District, Madhya Pradesh ('the District Forum') admitted that the petitioner's vehicle in question was insured with the respondent insurance company during the said period and the registration of the claim on 01.11.2012 on the information given by the petitioner about the theft of the insured vehicle on 18.10.2012. The respondent by rejecting the other facts has submitted that the petitioner did not give immediate information of theft of the vehicle to the insurance company whereas the information should have been given immediately after the theft or within 48 hours. The information regarding the theft of the vehicle was being given to the insurance company by the petitioner after 10-15 days, is in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The petitioner has not produced the documents sought by them due to which there was no liability of the insurance company and the respondent has not committed any deficiency in service. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled for any relief. Thus, the respondent insurance company has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. The District Forum vide their order dated 12.02.2015 while dismissing the complaint observed that:
"This is clearly mentioned in the insurance policy exhibit D 1 that - claim for theft of vehicle not payable if theft not reported to company within 48 hours of its occurrence. And as per the condition of insurance policy - notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the companies shall require. The complainant has not given any explanation of providing information to the respondent insurance company after a delay, neither has he shown sufficient reasons.
Although in exhibit C 8 submitted by the complainant to the respondent, there is mentioned that he had given the information of incident to the insurance company on its phone number on the same day, that is the date of the incident, but in that regard neither that telephone number has been told on which the information is said to have been given, nor the call detail has been produced. In fact, the complainant in affidavit this has not been submitted that he or his son has given information on telephone to the respondent insurance company about the incident immediately after the theft of vehicle. Thus this is not liable to be admitted that the complainant had given information of the incident on telephone immediately after the incident.
In New India Insurance Company Ltd., vs Trilochan Jane, IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC) this has been held that - in the case of theft when no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurers should also be informed within a day or 2 so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days would be a violation of condition of the policy, as it deprivers the insurer offer valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/ help in tracing the vehicle. The Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal 2003 (20 CPR 256 (sc) observed that delay intimation to insurance companies fact tell. In the case in hand, apparently there is long delay in lodging FIR and intimation to insurance company about theft of insured car and such circumstances, complaint was held liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of the aforesaid analysis due to the delay in giving information of the incident by the complainant to the insurance company there is a violation of condition of the policy, because of which the respondent insurance company is not liable to pay the damages to the complainant. The respondent insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service by not making payment of claimed amount to the complainant. Resultantly, the complainant is not entitled to get the desired relief from the respondent. Thus, the complaint is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case both the parties shall bear their own litigation cost."
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide their order dated 06.04.2015 had dismissed the appeal.
6. Hence, the present revision petition.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the IRDA circular dated 20.09.2011 which according to him provides that the insurer's decision to reject the claim should be on a sound logic and valid grounds, and the claims should not be rejected only on technical grounds. In the present case that the petitioner had lodged an FIR about the theft of the vehicle and had also informed about the theft to the insurance company on telephone, thus rejection of the insurance claim is nothing but deficiency of service. The State Commission and District Forum had erred in rejecting the claim.
9. We find that the District Forum has extensively dealt with the issue regarding the delay in the petitioner informing the respondent in their order as reproduced in paragraph 4 above. The State Commission in their order have also exhaustively dealt with the contention of the counsel that in view of the IRDA circular dated 20.09.2011 the respondent should not have repudiated the claim on the ground of delay alone unless the reasons for delay are specifically ascertained and the insurers have satisfied themselves that the delayed claims would otherwise have been rejected even if reported on time. The State Commission held that this circular was merely an advisory to the insurance companies. It will not overwrite a specific condition mentioned in the policy. Unless the insurance companies incorporate the changes in the policy document, delay will be settled to a claim of theft of vehicle as per the existing terms and conditions of the policy.
10. We find that the Petitioner has nowhere explained the reasons for the delay in informing the respondent by giving a written notice regarding the theft of the vehicle to the respondent as per the terms and conditions of the policy.
11. In view of the above, we are of the view that the respondent was well within their rights and justified in repudiating the claim of the petitioner.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed:
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."
13. Thus, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed with no order as to cost.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER