State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. vs Mahavir Singh on 29 May, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Remand Appeal No.340 of 28.03.2017 First Appeal No.275 of 24.02.2011 Date of Decision: 29.05.2017 United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through Shri Anil Kakkar, Deputy Manager. Appellant-Opposite Party Versus Mahavir Singh s/o Sh. Ram Bhagat Singh, Resident of Village Mandothi, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. Respondent-Complainant CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued by: Shri P.S. Saini, Advocate for appellant. Shri Shashindra Tripathi, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred by Opposite Party against the order dated January 20th, 2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short 'the District Forum') in Complaint No.769 of 2009.
2. Mahavir Singh-complainant (appellant herein), registered owner of truck bearing registration No.HR-63-A-1524, got insured the above mentioned vehicle with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the Insurance Company')-Opposite Party/appellant, regarding the period from 12th April, 2006 to 11th April, 2007 vide cover note No.606083 (Exhibit P-5). The Insured Declare Value (IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.11,40,000/-. The above mentioned vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of 12th/13th, May, 2006. Intimation was given to the Police. First Information Report (FIR) No.540 (Exhibit P-2) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged on 2nd June, 2006 at Police Station Nangloi. The complainant also soon after informed the Insurance Company regarding theft of the vehicle alongwith all required documents. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company assured the complainant to settle the claim amount within a short period. The above mentioned vehicle owned by the complainant was financed by M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. Un-traced report (Exhibit P-3) was submitted by the Police on 20th May, 2007. Despite that claim of the complainant has not been settled by the Insurance Company. It is prayed that the Insurance Company-opposite party be directed to pay the assured sum of Rs.11,40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, un-necessary harassment and an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
3. The Insurance Company-Opposite Party in its written version has taken plea that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as information regarding this incident was not given immediately to the Insurance Company. Moreover, the occurrence took place during the intervening night of 12th/13th, May, 2006 and the matter was reported to the Police after more than a period of 20 days from the date of occurrence. The Insurance Company sent letters dated 08.01.2007, 31.01.2007, 21.03.2007 and 16.05.2007 requiring the complainant to submit report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., route permit and untraced report etc. As the complainant did not supply the above stated documents, the claim was closed vide letter dated 29th August, 2007. The complainant without completing the required formalities filed the present complaint un-necessarily.
4. Considering the request of the complainant, claim file was again reopened vide letter dated 11th September, 2007 and permission in this regard was obtained from the competent authority. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
5. After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated 20th January, 2011, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the Insurance Company to make payment of an amount of Rs.11,40,000/- being IDV of the vehicle with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint as well as an amount of Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. In case, the awarded amount is not paid within a period of one month from the date of decision, the complainant shall be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 20th February, 2011.
6. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 20th January, 2011 passed by the learned District Forum, the Insurance Company-opposite party filed First Appeal No.275 dated 24th February, 2011 before this Commission. The appeal was accepted by Principal Bench of this Commission presided over by Hon'ble Justice R.S. Madan, the then President of the Commission vide order dated 25th May, 2012 on the ground of limitation mentioning that the complaint was filed beyond the period of two years as provided under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
7. The complainant-respondent challenged the order dated 25th May, 2012 passed by this Commission by filing Revision Petition No.3443 of 2012 titled as Mahavir Singh versus United India Insurance Company Limited before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short the 'National Commission'). The Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 28th May, 2013 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by this Commission. The case was remanded back for fresh decision on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. This Commission presided over by Hon'ble Justice R.S. Madan, the then President of the State Commission, again decided the First Appeal No.275 of 2011 vide order dated 30th August, 2013.
8. Again appeal was allowed and the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed on the ground of delay in submitting information to the Police as well as to the Insurance Company regarding theft of the vehicle. The complainant-respondent again challenged the order dated 30th August, 2013 before the Hon'ble National Commission by filing Revision Petition No.4830 of 2013. Ultimately, vide order dated 14th February, 2017, the revision petition No.4830 of 2013 was also allowed and the order dated 30th August, 2013 passed by this Commission was again set aside mentioning that few documents were produced before the Hon'ble National Commission which were very material for consideration on delay in lodging FIR. The case was again remanded back to this Commission for fresh decision after considering the documents taken on record and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. The relevant documents are already on the file.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
10. During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the truck vehicle bearing registration No.HR-63-A-1524, was insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company, regarding the period from 12th April, 2006 to 11th April, 2007 vide insurance cover note Exhibit P-5 mentioning the IDV as Rs.11,40,000/-. It is evident from the insurance policy cover note (Exhibit P-5). The Insurance Policy has been adduced in evidence as Exhibit R-4. Admittedly, the complainant is the registered owner of the above mentioned truck. During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the truck vehicle was stolen by some unknown person during the intervening night of 12th/13th May, 2006 and matter was reported to the Police of Police Station Nangloi, vide FIR No.540 dated 2nd June, 2006 (Exhibit P-2). It is evident from the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit R-14) and un-traced report (Exhibit P-3) that the vehicle could not be traced and untraced report was submitted by the S.H.O. Police Station, Nangloi, Delhi on 20th May, 2007.
11. The main controversy in this case was regarding limitation period for filing the complaint. The occurrence, admittedly, took place during the intervening night of 12th/13th May, 2006 and complaint was filed by the complainant on 03rd December, 2009. Certainly, after a period of more than three years. It will be pertinent to mention here that at the time of filing of the complaint, the complainant has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. That application was allowed vide order dated 03rd December, 2009, although without notice to the opposite party. The order dated 03rd December, 2009 was never challenged by the opposite party-Insurance Company during the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum. At the time of deciding first appeal No.275 of 2011, this Commission gave findings that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation and the complaint was dismissed vide order dated 25th May, 2012. While deciding Revision Petition No.3443 of 2012, the Hon'ble National Commission set aside the order dated 25th May, 2012 passed by this Commission and remanded the case back for fresh decision mentioning that findings should be on the point of limitation also. Now, this Commission is required to give findings in clear words as to whether the complaint was filed within the prescribed period of limitation or not?
12. It will be pertinent to mention here that when complainant submitted claim before the Insurance Company-Opposite Party alongwith documents, the Insurance Company caused delay in settlement of the claim due to certain reasons. One of the reasons was that the untraced report was received after more than a period of one year. Un-traced report (Exhibit P-3) was submitted by the S.H.O. Police Station, Nangloi, Delhi on 20th May, 2007. Earlier also, the Insurance Company sent letters dated 08.01.2007, 31.01.2007, 21.03.2007 and 16.05.2007 requiring the complainant to submit report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., route permit and untraced report etc. In this situation, letter was issued that claim of the complainant be treated as "No Claim" on 29.08.2007.
13. It is the version of the Insurance Company itself that after closing the claim case of the complainant, the same was again re-opened on the basis of application filed by the complainant on 11th September, 2009. Thereafter, the Insurance Company neither issued any letter mentioning that claim of the complainant stands repudiated nor took any effective steps ordering settlement of the claim of complainant. In this situation, certainly findings cannot be given that the complaint filed by the complainant was beyond the period of limitation. It was not possible to settle the claim of the complainant before the untraced report was submitted. The untraced report was submitted on 20th May, 2007 i.e. after more than a period of one year from the date of occurrence. Similarly, the claim of the complainant was again reopened on 11.09.2007, as admitted by the Insurance Company itself in paragraph No.2 of the written submission on merits. Ultimately, the complainant sent legal notice dated 12.11.2009 (Exhibit P-8) upon the Insurance Company. In this way, in fact in this case cause of action is continuous as the Insurance Company itself reopened claim of the complainant and thereafter did not pass final order. The cause of action finally arose after service of legal notice Exhibit P-8, upon the Insurance Company. Accordingly, findings are given that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation i.e. within two years from the date of cause of action finally arose.
14. The Insurance Company has also taken plea in written version that the complainant has violated the terms of the insurance policy as the information regarding the occurrence of theft of the vehicle was given to the Police on 02nd June, 2006 i.e. after 20 days. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Insurance Company also argued that delay was caused by the complainant in giving information to the Insurance Company regarding this occurrence. The complainant has taken plea in his complaint that the intimation was sent to the Insurance Company alongwith documents soon after the occurrence but exact date is not mentioned. Anyhow, in the written version also the Insurance Company has not taken a specific plea regarding causing delay in submitting information with respect to this occurrence to the Insurance Company. In fact, the Insurance Company even did not mention in the written version that on which date and month the information was received by the Insurance Company regarding theft of the vehicle and on which particular date the claim was filed by the complainant.
15. Earlier, this Commission has given findings that the complainant is not entitled to receive the claim amount as the information was given to the Police after 20 days when F.I.R. was lodged in Police Station on 2nd June, 2006. What happened when the matter was pending before the Hon'ble National Commission vide Revision Petition No.4830 of 2013, the complainant was granted permission to adduce in evidence documents Annexure-1 and Annexure-2. The case was remanded back for fresh decision mentioning that these documents are relevant for giving findings regarding delay in submitting information to the Police. Annexure-1 is the entry in the Daily Diary register at Police Post, Tikri Border at Sr.No.25 dated 12th May, 2006. It is mentioned that wireless message was received at 7:00 A.M. that truck No.HR-63 -1524 had been stolen near Vijay Service Station and that information has been registered in Rojnamcha and copy of that report has been handed over to HC Deena Nath. Annexure-2 is a copy of entry in Daily Diary Register at Sr.No.25 Police Post Tikri Border. In this document, Mahavir complainant stated that his truck was parked by his driver near Tikri Border which has been stolen. Head Constable met the truck helper who could not respond satisfactorily as the driver of the vehicle was not available there. It is mentioned that appropriate action shall be taken accordingly after making proper inquiry. So, it is clear that information was sent to the Police Post Tikri Border soon after the occurrence took place on the same date.
16. There is no delay of any type on the part of the complainant. In fact, delay was caused in lodging FIR by the Police who thought it proper to register FIR after making proper inquiry from the driver and other persons. In our view, the duty of the complainant was only to inform the Police immediately. If the Police take time to register FIR and to submit the untraced report, the complainant cannot be blamed for it. In this way, it is clear that no un-necessary delay was cause in sending information to the Police as well as to the Insurance Company after the truck vehicle was stolen.
17. Moreover, in the instructions issued by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (for short 'IRDA'), vide Circular Ref: IRDA/ HLTH/ MISC/ CIR/ 216/ 09/ 2011 dated September 20th, 2011, it has been stated that the Insurance Companies should avoid to decline genuine claim of the claimants on the basis of minor technicalities and some delay in sending information to the Insurance Company. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in giving findings that information was given by the complainant to the Police as well as Insurance Company immediately after the occurrence took place. The claim of the complainant cannot be declined on this ground also.
18. No other point was raised during the course of arguments. We have no hesitation in holding that the complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.11,40,000/- being IDV of the vehicle. We find no illegality or invalidity in the impugned order dated 20th January, 2011 passed by the learned District Forum. Awarding of an amount of Rs.11,40,000/- on account of loss of vehicle, being the IDV of the vehicle, as well as an amount of Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses as well as awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, is justifiable. Resultantly, findings of the learned District Forum stands affirmed. We find no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed.
Announced:
29.05.2017 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL