State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. ... vs Ishwar Singh Son Of Sardar Singh, ... on 25 July, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No. 254 of 2012 Date of Institution: 24.02.2012 Date of Decision: 25.07.2012 1. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. Ltd. IIIrd Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi, through its Manager. 2. The Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Atlas Road, near Dena Bank, Sonepat. Appellants (Ops) Versus Ishwar Singh son of Sardar Singh, Resident of Village Assawarpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Ms. Seema Pasricha, Advocate for appellants. Shri Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.01.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sonepat whereby the complaint filed by respondent-complainant was accepted by granting following relief:-
..it is directed to the respondents to make the payment of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rs.four lacs twenty thousands) alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle till the decision of the case and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/- )Rs.one thousand) for rendering deficient services, for causing mental agony & harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. However, it is also directed to the complainant to complete the formalities of the respondents and also to submit all the required document with the respondents and also to get transfer the RC of tractor No.HR10J/7154 in favour of the respondent insurance company, for the settlement of his claim at the earliest possible.
With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed and the respondents are directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of pronouncement of this order.
Undisputed facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that tractor bearing registration No.HR10J/7154 of the respondent-complainant was insured with the appellants-opposite parties vide policy No.43437355 w.e.f. 20.3.2009 to 19.03.2010 for a sum of Rs.4,20,000/-. Unfortunately, the above said tractor was stolen on 01.04.2009. Complainant informed the Insurance Company upon which during investigation it revealed that the Insurance Cover Note bearing No.200702232891 purportedly issued by M/s Reliance GIC Co. Ltd.
insuring the above said vehicle for the period 20.03.2008 to 19.03.2009 produced by the complainant to get the policy renewed from the appellants-opposite parties, was fake and fabricated and for that reason the claim of the complainant was repudiated in view of condition No.8 of the policy which provides:-
that due observance and fulfillment of terms and conditions and endorsement of this policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under this policy.
The opposite parties further stated that the tractor was stolen on 01.04.2009 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 05.04.2009 and intimation to the Insurance Company was given on 18.05.2009 and thus the complainant violated condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy.
Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing complaint and the complaint on having been contested by the opposite parties on the ground stated above, was accepted by granting relief as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellants it is contended that at the time of taking the policy from the opposite parties, the complainant had produced the old cover note allegedly issued by Reliance General Insurance Company on the basis of which the appellants had insured the vehicle without previous inspection as per their rules of no previous inspection is conducted in the case of continuation of the previous insurance policy without any break in between at the time of renewing the previous insurance policy. However, later on during the investigations, it revealed that no such cover note was issued by Reliance General Insurance Company and thus it is clear breach of the condition No.8 of the Insurance Policy which is reproduced as under:-
Condition No.8:- that due observance and fulfillment of terms and conditions and endorsement of this policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under this policy.
In support of his argument learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention towards the letter dated 6th June, 2011 which shows that the previous policy on the basis of which the policy was obtained by the complainant from the appellants-opposite parties, was found fake.
It is further contended by the learned counsel the alleged theft took place on 01.04.2009 whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 5.4.2009 and thus there was violation of condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy which is reproduced as under:-
CONDITIONS This Policy and the Schedule shall be read together and any word or expression to which a specific meaning has been attached in any part of this Policy or of the Schedule shall bear the same meaning whether it may appear.
1.
Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or 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. 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 Company Immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending Prosecution inquest of Fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may given rise to a claim under this Policy in case of theft or other criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this Policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the Policy and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.
In view of aforesaid condition it is proved that the complainant has violated the terms of the policy because the tractor was stolen on 01.04.2009 and F.I.R. was lodged on 05.04.2009 and thereafter intimation was given to the Insurance Company on 18.05.2009. This act of the complainant has deprived the Insurance Company to investigate the matter at appropriate time.
It is well settled principle of law that where there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and in giving intimation to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. Reference in this regard is made to the decision rendered by the Honble National Commission in First Appeal No.321 of 2005 New India Assurance Company Limited versus Trilochan Jane decided on 09.12.2009 wherein the facts were that the vehicle was stolen on 08.04.2000, the matter was reported to the police on 10.04.2000 i.e. after two days and information to the Insurance Company was given after about nine days i.e. on 17.04.2000. While deciding the above said appeal the Honble National Commission observed as under:-
Learned counsel for the respondent, relying upon the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Nitin Khandelwal reported in (2008) 11 SCC 256 contended that in the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. The said Judgment was in a totally different context. In the said case, the plea taken by the Insurance Company was that the vehicle though insured for personal use was being used as a taxi in violation of the terms of the Policy. The plea raised by the Insurance Company was rejected and it was observed that in the case of theft breach of condition is not germane. In the present case, the respondent did not care to inform the Insurance Company about the theft for a period of 9 days, which could be fatal to the investigation. The delay in 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 traveled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to kabadi (scrap dealer).
In our view, the State Commission erred in holding that the respondent/complainant had reported the theft of the vehicle to the appellant-Insurance Company within a reasonable time. We are not going into the other question regarding violation of Condition No.5 of the Insurance Policy as we have non-suited the respondent/complainant on the first ground.
The instant case is fully covered by Trilochan Janes case supra.
It is well settled principle of law that while settling the claims of the parties, the terms of the Insurance Policy have to be construed strictly and no relief can be given to any of the parties beyond those terms. Reference in this regard is made case law cited as UNITED India INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus HARCHAND RAI CHANDAN LAL, (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 644, wherein Honble Supreme Court has held that:-
Held, the terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties and they have to abide by the definition given therein, and all those expressions appearing in the policy have to be construed as it is and something cannot be added, subtracted or substituted The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to HARCHAND RAI CHANDAN LALs case (Supra).
Similar view has been taken by the Honble Apex Court in case cited as SURAJ MAL RAM NIWAS OIL MILLS (P) LTD. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY & ANR, IV(2010) CPJ 38 (S.C.) as under:-
22. Before embarking on an examination of the correctness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a contract of insurance. It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed, and no exception can be made on the ground of equity.
24. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount important, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties.
The facts and circumstances of the instant case are fully attracted to Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd case (Supra).
In view of our aforesaid discussions it is established that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy for delaying the matter in lodging the F.I.R. as well as for giving information to the Insurance Company and for that reason the complainant is not entitled for any compensation because the terms of the policy have to be construed strictly. The District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate all these aspects and committed grave error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 25.07.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member