National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bharti Axa General Insurance Company ... vs Bhag Chand on 10 May, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 543 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 06/10/2015 in Appeal No. 415/2015 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ONE OF ITS OFFICES AT MERCANTILE HOUSE 7TH FLOOR, 15, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BHAG CHAND S/O SH. SHEO CHAND, R/O SHIKARPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT-HISAR HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Manu Mridul, Advocate
Dated : 10 May 2016 ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. In view of the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 23 days is hereby condoned.
-2-
2. It is now transpired that the complainant/respondent has not got Rs.10,000/- through demand draft. The petitioner/insurance company is directed to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- through demand draft only within a period of one week from today, to his counsel, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till its realisation. This is very bad practice that the orders of this Commission have not been followed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is harping on the argument that he has got the proof of service of postal records but he has no proof that the money was paid directly to the complainant.
3. Arguments heard. Last time too, proxy counsel appeared but did not argue the case despite taking one hour to argue the case. The order-sheet dated 27.04.2016 is hereby reproduced as under:
" At 11-00 A.M.
Counsel for both the parties present. Counsel for Mr. Bhag Chand, respondent , submits that he has not gone through the file. He wants to go through the file, hence prays for one hour's time.
....................................
(J. M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ....................................
(DR.S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER -3- At 12-30 P.M.
1. Case called. Even after reading our file, counsel prays for adjournment. This is no ground at all. The case of petitioner- Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. is that, during the subsistence of Insurance Policy, the complainant parked his tractor near his house. On 07.08.2011, at about 4.00 A.M., the tractor was found missing. F.I.R. was recorded on the same day. However, intimation was given to the Insurance Company on 30.08.2011, i.e. after 23 days. Counsel for the respondent is disputing this stand. It is difficult to fathom why the counsel for the respondent is raising such like arguments. We remind him that this is a Revision Petition. We have to go by the judgments passed by the Fora below. There is no inkling in the judgments passed by both the Fora below, that the intimation was given earlier.
2. Counsel for the respondent still insists that the information was given, yet, he is not aware, whether the information was given. No document saw the light of the day, that the information was given earlier than 30.08.2011.
3. At this stage, counsel for the respondent prays for a date. Adjournment is granted subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs, which will be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.
-4-4. The matter is adjourned for arguments, on 10.05.2016."
4. Costs have been paid. Arguments have been heard.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that he was not given the policy condition and this fact was set up in para 4 of the complaint. It is strange that in the reply, the OP has not mentioned anything about this. Even that fact was not denied. However, we are not impressed by the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent. It was the duty of the complainant to get the policy. The law does not lay down any exception for a poor farmer. The law of the land must be followed.
6. The Supreme Court of India in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, CA No.6739 of 2010 decided on 17-08-2010 held as under:
"Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before -5- the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay -6- compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy."
7. Prior to the above said judgment, a bench of this Commission, headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, took the similar view in the celebrated authority of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane, first appeal No. 321 of 2005, decided on 9.12.2009 . In this case, it was specifically mentioned that the authority reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal (supra), is not applicable to this case.
8. This Bench also took the similar view in Tata Motor Finance Limited vs. Ramesh Kumar and another, revision petition No. 781 of 2014 decided on 27.10.2014 wherein a number of judgments were relied upon.
9. Similar view was taken by this Commission in another revision petition No. 2951 of 2011-Rahul Tanwar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. pronounced on 9.11.2012.
10. This Commission also took the similar view in the case of Mohammadali Liyakatali Pathan vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, revision petition No. 3183 of 2011 decided on -7- 12.7.2012 by a Bench of this Commission headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan.
11. The facts of this case are similar to the latest authority in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Avtar, first appeal No. 141 of 2009, decided on 11.11.2013 by a Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. K. Jain. This Commission also took the similar view in the case of Vikram Singh vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., revision petition No. 3864 of 2012 decided on 02.04.2013.
12. Consequently, the orders passed by the fora are set aside and complaint is dismissed.
13. The revision petition is allowed in above terms.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER