State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Ramprasad & Anr. on 14 January, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/12/497
Instituted on : 13.09.2012
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Office - Shiv Mohan Bhawan,
Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri,
Raipur (C.G.) ..... Appellant.
Vs
1.Ramprasad, S/o Shri Ramdulare, R/o : Village - Kathautiya, Post - Kathautiya, Thana - Manendragarh, District ‐ Koria (C.G.)
2. Branch Manager, Shastri Tractors, Authorized Dealer - Mahendra Tractors, Implements and Spares, Talwapara, Charcha Road, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) .... Respondents. PRESENT :
HONʹBLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Manoj Prasad, for appellant.
Smt. Indrani Chowdhury, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, proceeded ex‐parte.
ORDER (ORAL) DATED : 14/01/2013 PER :‐ HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against order dated 14.08.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Koriya, Baikunthpur // {PAGE } // (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.34/2012, whereby the appellant/Insurance Company, has been directed to pay Rs.4,28,702/‐ to the respondent no.1/complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim till date of payment and also to pay Rs.2,000/‐ as cost of litigation.
2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that tractor having engine No.N.G.N.L.‐1465 and chassis No.N.G.N.L.‐1465 was purchased by the complainant from the dealer/respondent No.2 and thereafter was got insured from the appellant/Insurance Company, for a period between 19.11.2010 to 18.11.2011. The said tractor was stolen by someone in the night intervening between 22.09.2011 to 23.09.2011.
Police was intimated on 23.09.2011 and thereafter the Insurance Company was intimated by fax on 05.10.2011 and by registered post on 07.10.2011. Claim was preferred by the complainant before the Insurance Company, which was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground of delay in intimating it and informing late to the Police by the insured and also on the ground that said tractor was not registered with the concerning authority at the relevant time, which was violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which amounts violation of terms of the insurance policy. It has also been taken as defence by the Insurance Company that on account of late // {PAGE } // intimation it had been deprived from conducting investigation in respect of alleged theft.
3. Learned District Forum, did not agree with the defence taken by the Insurance Company and allowed the complaint by the impugned order.
4. We have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
5. The first contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle in question, was not registered with the concerning authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the relevant time and therefore, it was a material violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, because the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were not followed by the complainant.
6. Before the District Forum, a document which appears a letter of registering authority, has been filed to indicate that said vehicle was later on got registered with the concerning Licensing Authority. Annexure O.P.3 has been brought on record by the Insurance Company itself before the District Forum, which is letter dated 13.04.2012. In this letter, it has been informed by the Licensing // {PAGE } // Authority, District Koriya (C.G.) that the tractor bearing registration No.C.G.16‐E‐0761 Mahindra 265 D.I. N.B.P.M.K.M. was registered on 04.11.2011, but in the same letter, it has also been stated that the vehicle was inspected prior to its registration by the Inspecting Authority, District Transport Authority, Koriya (C.G.) on 10.06.2011 and after physical verification and inspection, it was duly registered later on. This portion of the letter shows that application for registration of the vehicle, was moved prior to 10.06.2011, that is why competent authority, inspected the vehicle for the purpose of its registration on that particular date and the vehicle was very much in existence on that date. Later on in the month of September, 2011 it was stolen. Thus, it appears that application for registration of the vehicle was already moved before the competent authority prior to date of incident and was pending. This fact show that respondent No.1/complainant, cannot be said guilty of violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, because he had already moved application before the competent officer and then decision was to be taken by the competent officer, which was unnecessarily delayed at their end for which the respondent no.1/complainant, cannot be blamed.
7. The second contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that intimation of incident of theft was given late to the Police.
// {PAGE } //
8. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant submitted that proper information was given to the Police immediately after the incident and then respondent no.1/complainant was asked to search the vehicle here and there and to ascertain as to whether it has been actually stolen by someone or has been left somewhere by someone. She has drawn our attention towards copy of application dated 23.09.2011 moved before Police Station, Gohparu [Annexure A‐6(1)] and application dated 24.09.2011 moved before Police Station Jayantpur, District Shahdol (M.P.) copy of which is annexure A‐6(2). These two applications show that the Police was intimated by the respondent no.1/complainant on the date of incident itself regarding theft of the insured vehicle and then he was searching it here and there. In the recorded First Information Report (Annexure A‐3) also, it has been stated in the beginning itself that when it came to the knowledge of the respondent No.1/complainant that the tractor and trolley was not there where it was parked, then he immediately gave ring to his son, who was at the residence of his maternal uncle and then his son straightaway went to Police Station for lodging report. He gave oral information to the Police regarding incident of theft of the vehicle and then Police asked him to search the tractor and trolley in nearby places and thereafter // {PAGE } // the respondent no.1/complainant and his son were searching the vehicle in nearby places and when ultimately it was not found anywhere then on 30.09.2011, First Information Report (Annexure A‐3) was recorded by the Police. All these documents clearly show that respondent/complainant immediately informed the Police regarding incident of theft and then was making efforts to trace the vehicle in nearby places, but ultimately when he failed, then First Information Report was recorded by the Police.
9. The next contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that intimation to the Insurance Company was given very much late and therefore, it has been deprived of conducting its own investigation. It has been submitted that the information was given to the Insurance Company late as per averment made in the complaint itself by letter dated 04.10.2011.
10. The appellant/Insurance Company sent letter Annexure A‐7(1) to the respondent No.1/complainant on 16.01.2012. In this letter under the head reference, it has been mentioned that the date of loss was 22nd September, 2011 and the intimation was given on 30th November, 2011, whereas the copy of the postal receipt of the registered post by which intimation was sent to the Insurance Company by the // {PAGE } // respondent no.1/complainant (Annexure A‐5) shows that the registered post was sent on 07.10.2011, which was containing letter dated 05.10.2011 (Annexure A‐4). Thus, it appears that respondent no.1/complainant informed the Insurance Company regarding the incident of theft by letter dated 05.10.2011, which was posted on 07.10.2011 and was received in the office of the Insurance Company on some later date. The incident of theft was happened during night intervening between 22.09.2011 to 23.09.2011 and thereafter after 14 or 15 days, the post was sent containing intimation to the Insurance Company, which was received by the Insurance Company after a further gap of a month or so. Thus, there was a great delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company and there appears no satisfactory explanation for this delay. When Police was immediately informed by the respondent no.1/complainant orally, then intimation to the Insurance Company was also required to be sent at the earliest as per terms of the insurance policy. The Insurance Policy has been brought on record by the O.P./Insurance Company as document Annexure OP‐6. Condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy reads as under :‐ "1. 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 // {PAGE } // insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof 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 give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co‐operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender."
11. Thus under this condition notice to the Insurance Company was required to be given in writing immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim. It has further been provided that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co‐operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. Thus, it was necessary for the respondent no.1/complainant to act promptly and immediately in this regard and to inform the Insurance Company immediately. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane, in First Appeal No.321 of 2005, decided on 09.12.2009, the meaning of word "immediately" has been taken into consideration in detail by Hon'ble National Commission and it has been opined that "the delay in // {PAGE } // lodging the F.I.R. after 2 days of the coming to know of the theft and 9 days to the Insurance Company, can be fatal as, in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to kabaadi (scrap dealer)."After taking into consideration the meaning of the word "immediately", Hon'ble National Commission in the aforesaid reported case, has opined that the word "immediately" means "within a reasonable time" having due regard to nature and circumstances of the case.
12. In the nature and circumstances of the case in hand, it appears that insured vehicle was stolen between the night intervening 22.09.2011 to 23.09.2011. The Police was also intimated orally and the searches were made hear and there. Ultimately when no effort could work out and it was found that vehicle was not traceable, then First Information Report was lodged to the Police on 30.09.2011 and thereafter there remains no reason for not intimating the Insurance Company immediately. The complainant did not act immediately thereafter for drafting letter of intimation. He took around four days for the same and then three further days for dropping the envelope in the post box and getting the letter registered. These all shows that respondent no.1/complainant was not intending to inform the // {PAGE } // Insurance Company immediately that is why immediately after occurrence of theft, the Insurance Company was not informed. We find that in the facts of the present case, the delay in informing to the Insurance Company was fatal to the complainant and as held by Hon'ble National Commission in the aforesaid case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane (Supra) the complainant is non‐suited on this ground.
13. Therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint filed by the respondent no.1/complainant before the District Forum, is dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/01/2013 /01/2013