State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nazar Singh on 27 April, 2018
Daily Order FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No.44 of 2018 Date of Institution: 25.01.2018 Order Reserved on :24.04.2018 Date of Decision : 27.04.2018 1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Registered & Head Office, 24 Whites Road, Chennai. 2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, E-10- 11, Ist Floor, Clibre Market, Patiala Road, Rajpura, District Patiala. Both through Sh. Parveen Gupta, Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO 123- 124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. Appellants/Opposite parties no.2 and 3 Versus 1. Nazar Singh s/o Sh. Chamel Singh r/o Village Maheshpura, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib now residing at Village Sanghol, Near Balmik Mandir, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib. Respondent no.1/Complainant 2. Sh. Vinod Kumar recognized agent of United Insurance Company Ltd., Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. Respondent no.2/ Opposite party no.1 First Appeal against order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib. Quorum:- Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For appellant : Sh. D.P Gupta, Advocate For respondent no.1 : Sh.Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate For respondent no.2 : Ex-parte. J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :- The appellants have directed this appeal against order dated 08.12.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Fatehgarh Sahib, directing the appellants of this appeal to pay insured declared value (in short IDV) of the said vehicle i.e. Rs.9,00,000/- to respondent no.1 of this appeal with further composite amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental harassment and cost of litigation. The appellants of this appeal are opposite parties no..2 and 3 in the complaint and respondent no.1 of this is complainant and respondent no.2 of this appeal is opposite party no. 1 in the complaint before District Forum and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience. 2. The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OPs on the averments that he got his truck make Tata LPT2515 bearing registration no. PB-65-K-6019 Chassis no. MAT426023A0C05283 Engine no. 01C62850832 Model 2010 insured with OP no.2 for the period 17.04.2014 to midnight of 16.04.2015 through OP no.1 its recognized agent by paying premium of Rs.31,283/-. OP no.2 issued policy no.1110073114P100450105 to complainant during subsistence of the policy. The complainant parked his truck by locking in front of Tyre Service Shop of Balbir Singh situated at Village Sanghol on 24.11.2014 at 7.00 pm. Since the truck was to be loaded from Chandigarh on next day i.e. 25.11.2014 by the complainant. The complainant took keys of the truck with him and when he came on the next morning, he found the truck missing therefrom. He searched for truck and immediately lodged police complaint in this regard. He sent message regarding above said theft of the truck to OPs on their email ID on the same day and news regarding theft were also published in the newspaper Punjabi Jagran dated 26.11.2014. The complainant lodged FIR no. 183 dated 02.12.2014 for the offence under Section 379 IPC, when he failed to trace out his stolen truck. He lodged insurance claim with OPs along with all required documents. OPs repudiated the insurance claim, vide letter dated 31.03.2016 on account of inordinate delay in providing the information to the police. The complainant visited the office of OP no.2 and explained the circumstances, but to no effect. The police caused some delay in recording the police report on the pretext that complainant should first search for his missing truck before lodging police complaint. He also served a legal notice to OPs on 20.01.2016, but to no effect. The complainant has termed the act of OPs as deficient in service and of unfair trade practice and prayed for direction to OPs to pay him the IDV of the stolen truck in question of Rs.9 lac, besides to pay Rs. 50,000/- as punitive damages and cost of litigation.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The insurance claim of the complainant has been repudiated by OPs on account of violation of condition no.1 of the policy. The loss has been intimated after inordinate delay and FIR was registered on 02.12.2014, whereas loss of truck took place on the intervening night of 24/25.11.2014. The complainant violated condition no.1 of the policy. The complainant has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint. OPs floated insurance scheme for public in general after prior approval of IRDA under IRDA Act 1999 and Insurance Act 1938. On merits, OPs denied this fact that complainant parked his truck at the shop of Balbir Singh and took the keys with him. OPs also denied this fact on 25.11.2014 complainant was taken aback, when he found that vehicle was not at the parked place. This fact was also denied by OPs that complainant immediately visited the police post Sanghol along with some respectable, where they suggested him first to search for missing truck. This fact was also denied by OPs that complainant sent messages regarding above theft to OPs through email and news were also published in the Daily Ajit on 26.11.2014 and in other newspaper on 29.11.2014. On receipt of intimation of loss, OPs deputed IRDA approved investigator M/s Sai Investigating Service Manimajra Chandigarh to investigate the case, who submitted his report on 10.03.2015. This fact was also denied by OPs that complainant submitted documents with untraced report of NCRB and keys of the truck as well. OPs also denied this fact that complainant served legal notice upon them on 20.01.2016. OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of other documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-26 and affidavit of Nazar Singh son of Chamel Singh as Ex.C-27, affidavit of Harjinder Singh son of Mohan Singh as Ex.C-28, Ex.C-24 is affidavit of one Pal Singh and others and closed the evidence. As against it; OPs 2 and 3 tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP-2/6 and Ex.OP-2/7 is affidavit of Mohinder Dawar Deputy Manager Divisional Office United India Insurance Company and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Consumer Forum Fatehgarh Sahib accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 08.12.2017. Aggrieved by above order of the District Forum Fatehgarh Sahib, opposite parties no.2 and 3 now appellant, have carried this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, whereas respondent no.2 is proceeded exparte in this appeal, vide order dated 28.03.2018 passed by this Commission and have also examined the record of the case.
6. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of his case, as pleaded in the complaint. He testified in his affidavit Ex.C-1 that after theft of this truck in question, he made frantic efforts to search it, but it could not be traced out. He further deposed that he sent message to OPs about this theft of truck on their email ID on the same day. He also deposed that news items regarding theft of the above said truck were published in Punjabi Jagran on 26.11.2014 and in Daily Ajit on 29.11.2014. He lodged police report, but the police suggested him firstly to make his own efforts to trace out the stolen truck. Ex.C-2 is letter to complainant for sending FIR to OPs on 08.12.2014. Ex.C-3 is letter dated 05.06.2015 by OPs to complainant directing him to submit documents like non-traceable report , both keys of vehicle, NCRD report and so on. Ex.C-4 is letter dated 25.06.2015 by OPs sent to complainant for sending documents detailed in it. Similarly, letter Ex.C-5 dated 20.07.2015 was sent by OPs to complainant. Branch Manager wrote letter Ex.C-6 dated 29.09.2015 to complainant closing his case as 'no claim' due to non-compliance of required claim papers. Ex.C-7 is document sent by OPs to complainant on 05.02.2106 regarding furnishing the details forthwith. Ex.C-10 is untraced report sent by the police under Section 173 Cr.PC, which has been accepted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Khamano on 03.10.2015. Copy of FIR no. 183 dated 02.12.2014 for the offence under Section 379 IPC at Police Station Khamano is Ex.C-10 regarding theft of the truck. The status of the enquired vehicle is Ex.C-11 and vehicle enquiry report is Ex.C-12. The installation certificate of this vehicle is Ex.C-13 and certificate of untraced report dated 02.12.2014 is Ex.C-14 on the record. No due certificate is Ex.C-15 and policy document is Ex.C-17 on the record. Permit of truck in question is Ex.C-19. Legal notice dated 22.01.2016 sent by complainant through his Counsel Gaganpreet Singh to OPs is Ex.C-20 and reply to legal notice dated 01.03.2016 is Ex.C-21. The newspaper clippings have been placed on the record with regard to theft of truck in this case and registration certificate of the truck is Ex.C-22. Affidavit of one Pal Singh and others is Ex.C-24 on the record to the effect that police instead of lodging the report directed them to make efforts firstly to trace out the stolen truck. Ex.C-27 is affidavit of Nazar Singh complainant. Ex.C-28 is affidavit of Harjinder Singh son of Mohan Singh on the record.
7. OPs also led rebuttal evidence on the record consisting of terms and conditions of the policy vide Ex.OP-2/1. Letter dated 31.03.2016 to complainant is Ex.OP-2/2. The report of investigation into this matter submitted by K.K. Puri Investigator is Ex.OP-2/3. Motor accident claim form is Ex.OP-2/4 and police report is Ex.OP-2/5. Affidavit of Mohinder Dawar Deputy Manager Divisional Office United India Insurance Company /OPs is Ex.OP-2/7 on the record.
8. From conclusion of above referred evidence on the record and hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length, we find that the point in controversy in this case is as to what is the effect of eight days delay in lodging the police report regarding theft of the truck. The report of investigator Ex.OP-2/3 dated 10.03.2015 is on the record. The investigator appointed by OPs to look into the matter and to record statements of the witnesses. He found in his conclusion that vehicle in question was stolen from the parking area of M/s Virdi Tyre Services Mangol (Khamano). The matter was reported to the police and truck was not traced out. The investigator has not found the case as fake one. The case of the complainant has been found as genuine by the investigator, vide his report Ex.OP-2/3 and evidence led by the complainant has also lent due corroboration to it. Now, we are concerned with this fact as to what is the effect in not giving immediate intimation to OPs and police after theft of this truck by the complainant. Condition no.1 of the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.OP-2/1 is relevant and is reproduced as under :-
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 company shall required. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or other criminal act, which may be the subject of the claim under this policy the insured shall give immediately notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.
It is, thus, evident from perusal of this condition of the policy that 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 company shall require.
9. Now, we have examined this point as to what is the effect of eight days delay in not giving the information of this theft to OPs . The complainant has pleaded and stated in his affidavit on oath that he gave intimation on the same day to OPs on the email ID of OPs. OPs have denied this fact. In addition to that, newspaper clippings have proved this fact that theft of the vehicle took place and news were published in the newspaper immediately after the theft. The investigator found the case of the complainant as genuine as appointed by OPs. On the point of delay Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority has issued circular, vide reference no. IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011 dated 20.09.2011 to the effect that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days. It is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances. This direction has been issued to insurance companies by IRDA on 20.09.2011. We find that complainant has explained delay in this case to OPs of this theft of insured truck. The immediate worry of the person is to trace out the stolen vehicle instead of rushing to give intimation to insurance company. The evidence has also come on the record by the complainant that he sent email to OPs on the same day. Whatever the case may be, we find that this delay of eight days stood duly explained in this case by the complainant. A fortiori, Apex Court has recently held in "Om Parkash Versus Reliance General Insurance & another" reported in IV(2017) CPJ 10 (SC) that it is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightway 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 the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of the policyholders. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. Genuine claim should not be rejected on the ground of delay in intimation of loss when it has been explained by the circumstances. In view of law laid down by Apex Court in Om Parkash (supra) the counsel for appellant cannot get any benefit from law laid down by National Commission in "New India Assurance Company Ltd versus Trilochan Jane", reported in (2012) 4 CPJ 441 and "Pardeep Kumar Tiwari versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd", reported in (2017) 1 CPJ 493 (NC).
10. Resultantly, we find no illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum by directing OPs to pay the IDV of the stolen vehicle to the complainant, which is Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lacs) with composite compensation of Rs.15,000/-. (fifteen thousand rupees). The order of District Forum under challenge in this case is, thus, affirmed in this appeal. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
11. The appellants had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/-with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.631891/-, vide receipt dated 06.03.2018 as per compliance with the order of this Commission. Both these amounts with interest, which accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque / demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, subject to stay order if any. Remaining amount, if any, due shall also be paid to complainant by the appellants within 45 days from receipt of the copy of this order
12. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 24.04.2018 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER April 27, 2018 (ravi)