National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bhartiya Samajik Vikas Samitee vs National Insurance Company Limited & 2 ... on 12 May, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 902 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 02/01/2017 in Appeal No. 1011/2016 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. BHARTIYA SAMAJIK VIKAS SAMITEE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, R/O. 7-DA-24, JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR RAJASHTAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & 2 ORS. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET P.O. BOX NO. 9229A, KOLKATA WEST BENGAL 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, LIFE FUNDS SECOND FLOOR, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE, BHAWANI SINGH ROAD, JAIPUR-302004 RAJASHTAN 3. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 206, DIAMOND TOWER NEAR OLD CHUNGI AJMER ROAD JAIPUR RAJASHTAN 4. AGENT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 206, DIAMOND TOWER, NEAR OLD CHUNGI AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Ms. Pooja Nuwal, Advocate
Mr. Varun Pathak, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 12 May 2017 ORDER
1. By way of this Revision Petition, the petitioner herein seeks to assail the order dated 02.01.2017 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No.1011 of 2016 (BhartiyaSamajik Vikas Samittee, Jaipur Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.). By way of the impugned order, the State Commission upheld the order dated 18.07.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum') and dismissed the appeal at the admission stage and the complaint was accordingly dismissed as well.
2. Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the Complainant Society purchased a Hyundai Car bearing Registration No.RJ-14-CD-3589 for ₹7,24,469/- in the year 2007 for the official use of the employees/members of the Complainant Society. The said vehicle was insured with the OPs since 2007 on a yearly basis. In the year 2013, the Complainant Society paid Rs. 9,260/- towards insurance premium and the period of insurance was stated to commence from 26.03.2013 to 25.03.2014. On 04.12.2013, the Secretary of the Complainant Society parked the vehicle before the main gate of the Complainant Society's office around 7PM but the same was found to be missing around 10:40PM. Although, the Secretary approached the police for lodging a complaint, the police officials asked him to wait for a few days to make a thorough enquiry before lodging a formal complaint. Hence, FIR bearing No. 353/2013 was registered on 06.12.2013 and the OP was informed of the incident only on 11/13.03.2014. Immediately, the OP appointed a surveyor, who submitted his report dated 20.03.2014 after finding the matter a genuine case of theft. However, vide letter dated 10.04.2014, the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the information of theft was brought to the notice to the OP after delay of 99 days. Thereafter, the Complainant Society vide letter dated 19.04.2014 informed the OP that since the investigation process was still ongoing and the claim could be lodged after receipt of copies of FR, hence the claim needs to be reconsidered. However, OP failed to reconsider the claim despite repeated efforts. Aggrieved by the acts of the OP, the Complainant Society filed the complaint before the District Forum.
3. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 contested the claim of the complainant on the ground that the Complainant Society had committed a breach of the terms and conditions of the Policy when they failed to immediately inform OPs of the incident of theft. OP Nos. 3 and 4 did not contest the complaint and were directed to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.01.2014.
4. The District Forum vide order dated 18.07.2016 dismissed the complaint on account of breach of the policy condition No.1 which provided that the OP should be immediately informed of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the complainant Society preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 02.01.2017 upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Complainant Society approached this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and thoroughly perused the records.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that orders of the Fora below are not sustainable because both the Fora below have failed to appreciate that the Complainant Society immediately brought the incident of theft to the notice of the police. It was further argued that even the Surveyor appointed by the OP found the case of theft to be a genuine one as is evident from his Report dated 20.03.2014.
9. The learned counsel submitted that the delay in informing the OP was not intentional but because they were under a bona fide belief that only police needs to be immediately informed in the event of theft. The counsel further submitted that the OP was apprised of the incident soon after receipt of the police papers as required under the Policy.
10. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and examined the record. Admittedly, there is a delay of more than 90 days in intimating the OP of the theft of the insured vehicle. Condition 1 of the Policy, reads as follows:-
"Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage 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 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 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. From the above stated condition, it is clear that the insured (Complainant Society) was duty bound to immediately inform the Police and Insurance Company respectively, in the event of theft or any criminal act which may give rise to a claim under the policy. It is important to note that contract of the insurance is a contract between the insurer and the insured, and they are strictly governed by the terms and conditions of policy. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Soni Cherian, II 1999 CPJ 13 SC held as follows:-
"The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the Insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. That being so, the insured has also to act strictly in accordance with the statutory limitations or terms of the policy expressly set out therein."
12. In the present case, the Complainant Society failed to discharge their obligation under the Condition 1 when they did not immediately inform the OPs of the theft, hence OP cannot be fastened with any liability in this regard. Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12741 of 2010), decided on 17.08.2010 has observed that :-
"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 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 compensation to the Respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy".
13. On the basis of above discussion, I find that no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error has been established in the impugned order dated 2.1.2017 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the revision petition No. 902 of 2017 is dismissed in limine.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER