State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The General Manager, Reliance General ... vs Bijender Singh Son Of Sh. Tuhi Ram, ... on 5 March, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.140 of 2014 Date of Institution: 25.02.2014 Date of Decision : 05.03.2014 1. The General Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Reliance Center, 19, Wala Chand, Heera Chand Marg, Balard Estate, Mumbai. 2. The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company, 193, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase -1, New Delhi. 3. The Manager, Reliance General Insurance, Sector 16, Faridabad. Through Abhinav Chander, Manager, Legal, Reliance General Insurance Company, SCO No.156-146, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. ..Appellants Versus Bijender Singh son of Sh. Tuhi Ram, resident of House No.8321-C, Sector 52, Apna Ghar, NIT, Faridabad. Respondent CORAM : Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
For the appellants: Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate O R D E R Justice Nawab Singh, President (ORAL) Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and others (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) have come up in appeal against the order dated December 11th, 2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Faridabad, whereby, an amount of Rs.15,91,250/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization, was awarded to the respondent-complainant on account of theft of his Tata Dumper bearing registration No.HR-55F-4221. Rs.2200/- was also awarded as litigation expenses.
2. It is not in dispute that Tata Dumper was insured with the appellants for Rs.15,91,250/- for the period from February 05th, 2007 to February 04th, 2008. The Dumper was stolen on October 25th, 2007. F.I.R was registered on December 10th, 2007. The Insurance Company was informed. The Dumper could not be traced.
3. The respondent approached the appellants to pay the insured amount but he was not paid.
4. The respondent filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Forum.
5. The appellants filed written statement alleging that driver of the Dumper had left the key in the ignition of the vehicle, which led to the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus, the appellants were justified in repudiating the claim.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the driver and cleaner of the vehicle have themselves got recorded in their statements that they left the vehicle unattended to answer the call of nature. Thus, the complainant failed to safeguard the insured Dumper from the theft by leaving it unattended at unknown and unsafe place and violated the condition No.5 of the insurance policy.
7. This Commission does not concur with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants because the statements of Mr. Jamil, driver and Mr. Yunus purported to have been recorded by the Investigator of the Insurance Company has no admissibility under any law. Besides this, the driver and the cleaner who went to answer the call of nature, cannot be said to have left the vehicle totally unattended and parked at the unsafe place. They were in controllable distance. The contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days 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. The limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute. One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. The respondent informed the police in the very first morning of October 26th, 2007 about the theft of his vehicle but the police registered the F.I.R on December 10th, 2007. Thus, no negligence could be attributed to the respondent-complainant for delay in lodging the F.I.R as immediate information was given to the police.
8. In view of the above, it is established on the record that the appellants have tried to absolve themselves from the liability to compensate the respondent on flimsy ground. Hence, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
9. Finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.
10. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification, in accordance with the rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced:
05.03.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President U.K F.A.O No.140 of 2014 Present : Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.
Delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Announced:
05.03.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President