State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Pardeep Garg. vs Bajaj Allianz General Insu. Co. Ltd. & ... on 21 May, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.22/2015
Date of Presentation: 23.02.2015
Date of Decision: 21.05.2015
................................................................................
Pardeep Garg, son of Shri Tulsi Ram Garg,
Resident of Near Police Station, Kandaghat,
Tehsil & Post Office Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P.
... Appellant.
Versus
(1) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411 006 ((India).
(2) Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
Claim Department, S.C.O. 329, 1st Floor, Sector-9,
Panchkula (Haryana).
... Respondents.
.....................................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the appellant: Mr. Abhishek Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikram Singh Thakur, Advocate.
................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 19.12.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby, his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Pardeep Garg Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.22/2015) against the respondents, has been dismissed, on the ground that he did not intimate the alleged theft of insured vehicle, immediately, or within reasonable time and, thus, violated condition of the policy, which says that in the event of loss, the insurer is to be intimated of the loss, immediately.
2. Appellant had a truck, which was insured in the sum of `4.80 lacs, on the basis of IDV, with the respondents, for a period from 23.05.2008 to 22.05.2009. According to the appellant, one Baldev Sharma had been engaged by him, as a driver, and the custody of the vehicle was entrusted to him. The said driver did not contact the appellant for quite some time and when the appellant tried to trace the truck and the driver, he could not get any clue. He lodged a report with the police on 25.03.2009, in the form of a written complaint that his driver, Baldev Sharma had committed criminal breach of trust, in respect of the insured truck. According to the appellant, he informed the agent, through whom the vehicle had been insured, telephonically, on the very day of lodging of report with the police and was assured that matter for his Page 2 of 7 Pardeep Garg Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.22/2015) indemnification will be processed. When nothing was heard from the respondents, a written intimation was sent on 26.12.2009, but there was no response. Legal notices were sent to the respondents, on 11.07.2011 & 31.03.2012. Those notices also, did not fetch any response. Complainant, then filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on 27.04.2012.
3. Since the complaint was barred by time, an application under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was moved before the learned District Forum, which was allowed and the complaint was entertained.
4. Appellant sought directions to the respondents to pay a sum of `4.80 lacs, on account of indemnification for the loss of insured truck; `9.50 lacs, on account of loss of income and litigation expenses.
5. Respondents contested the complaint and pleaded that intimation of the alleged loss had been given more than nine months after the alleged loss and also the loss due to criminal breach of trust Page 3 of 7 Pardeep Garg Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.22/2015) by the servant of the insured (the appellant), was not covered under the policy.
6. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint, holding that the appellant did not give intimation of loss, immediately and that intimation was given on 26.12.2009, though the loss came to the notice of the appellant on 25.03.2009. Respondents' plea that policy does not cover the risk, by which loss had occurred, has been rejected.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the appellant to the instructions issued by Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority, vide Circular No.IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/09/2011, dated 20th September, 2011. As per these instructions, delay in intimation of loss of the insured property alone should not be a ground for repudiation of claim, if the claim is otherwise genuine and the insured due to unavoidable circumstances, could not intimate the loss, in terms of the policy. Relying upon this Circular, the Hon'ble Page 4 of 7 Pardeep Garg Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.22/2015) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in National Insurance Company Limited versus B. Venkataswamy, Revision Petition No.2852 of 2013, decided on 6th February, 2014, has allowed the claim, though there was delay of four months in intimating the insurer about the flood, in which the vehicle had been damaged.
9. In the present case, vehicle had allegedly been stolen. When the insured property is stolen and there is delay in informing the insurer about the alleged theft, the insurer is deprived of a valuable right to investigate the matter and trace the insured property, by use of its own resources. The law is well settled on this aspect of the matter. Furthermore, instructions relied upon in the above referred to case of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, i.e. National Insurance Company Limited versus B. Venkataswamy delay in intimation should be due to unavoidable circumstances. In the present case, unavoidable circumstances which led to delay in intimating the loss, have been pleaded or established. Page 5 of 7 Pardeep Garg Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.22/2015)
10. Above stated position apart, loss is not due to theft, as alleged by the complainant. Loss, according to the appellant's own report, which he lodged with the police, is due to criminal breach of trust, by his driver. As per First Information Report, copy Annexure-A, appellant submitted a written complaint that Shri Baldev Sharma, engaged by him as driver, had committed criminal breach of trust, in respect of the truck, as not only that he himself did not try to contact him telephonically about the movement of truck for quite long a time, but also did not respond to his telephone call and that in fact, he changed his telephone number to avoid telephonic contact. It was also reported that when appellant tried to contact him, by visiting his residence, he was not available and his family members did not disclose his whereabouts.
11. Police investigated the case, arrested Baldev Sharma driver and filed a challan under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against him, per Annexure-L, written by Police Station Kandaghat, where the case was registered, to the Superintendent of Police, Solan, to enable him to Page 6 of 7 Pardeep Garg Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.22/2015) supply information sought by the appellant under Right to Information Act.
12. In view of the above stated position, we see no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
13. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member May 21, 2015.
*dinesh* Page 7 of 7