State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Parvesh Kumar S/O Sh. Puran Singh, ... on 16 November, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.436 of 2012 Date of Institution: 02.04.2012 Date of Decision: 16.11.2012 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, LIC Building, 2nd Floor, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt through its authorized representative. Appellant (OP) Versus Parvesh Kumar s/o Sh. Puran Singh, Resident of Village and Post Office, Garhi Brahmna, District Sonepat. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri D.C. Kumar, Advocate for appellant. Shri Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sonepat whereby complaint bearing No.188/2011 filed by respondent-complainant seeking direction to the opposite party to pay the insurable benefits on account of theft of his insured motorcycle which was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, was accepted on the following terms:-
The present complaint stands allowed with the direction to the respondent to make compliance of this order within one month from the date of this order. However, it is also directed to the complainant to complete the formalities, submit the required documents and also to get transfer the RC of the vehicle in the name of the insurance company for the settlement of his claim at the earliest possible.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that motorcycle of the complainant bearing registration No.HR-10L/3553 was insured with the appellant-opposite party for the period w.e.f. 20.02.2009 to 19.02.2010. On 11.01.2010 the vehicle was stolen. F.I.R.10 dated 11.01.2010 was lodged with Police Station Civil Lines, Sonepat. Intimation to the Insurance Company was given after 23 days. Complainants claim was repudiated on the ground that there was inordinate delay of 23 days in lodging claim. Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite Party contested the complaint on the above stated ground.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite party has come up in appeal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant had informed the Insurance Company about the theft of his motorcycle after about 23 days which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy because the intimation to the Insurance Company was to be given within 48 hours from the date of theft. Therefore, complainants claim was rightly repudiated. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment rendered by Honble National Consumer Commission in First Appeal No.321 of 2005 New India Assurance Company Limited versus Trilochan Jane decided on 09.12.2009 and judgment rendered by State Commission, Haryana cited as National Insurance Company Limited versus Sukhjit Singh, 2010(4) CLT 361.
We find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. In First Appeal No.321 of 2005 New India Assurance Company Limited versus Trilochan Jane decided on 09.12.2009, 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.
In Sukhjit Singhs case (Supra) the facts were that the tractor of the complainant was stolen on 01.09.2002 and intimation to the Insurance Company was given on 17.10.2002. While accepting the appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited, this Commission held the Insurance Company justified in repudiating complainants claim on the ground of delay in giving intimation as well as recording F.I.R.
Honble National Commission in a recent judgment in Revision Petition No.3719 of 2011 Siraj Khan vs. Mahindra Finance Ltd. and others, decided on 03.07.2012 has observed as under:-
5. It emerged from perusal of the facts of the case and the documents placed on record that there was inordinate delay in informing the police as well as the opposite parties about the alleged incident. Nothing has been produced before us to counter this important aspect. The State Commission following the order of the National Commission in Appeal No.321 of 2005 in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. It is well settled by a catena of judgments that time is of essence in such cases and delay is in lodging the FIR and sending intimation about theft to the insurer would be fatal to the recovery of the insured vehicle and hence repudiation of the claim on this ground would be justified. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the revision petition and dismissed the same in limine on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
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 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 HARCHAND RAI CHANDAN LALs case (Supra) and Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd case (Supra).
With due respect to the judgments produced on behalf of the complainant rendered by Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh cited as National Insurance Company Limited, Gurgaon versus Ravi Dutt Sharma and another, 2011(4) PLR 154: 2011(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 631: 2011 (108) AIC 483 (P&H) and ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus KANDHA NAYAK, IV(2009) CPJ 96 (SCDRC, CUTTACK), we feel that the judgments relied on behalf of the appellant are more attractive and therefore no relief can be granted to the complainant because the repudiation of complainants claim was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the same cannot be termed as deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-opposite party.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.18,506/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant 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 16.11.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member