State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dharmendra Kumar Choubey vs D.M.United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 29 January, 2018
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Complaint Case No.CC/2017/70
Instituted on : 07.10.2017
Dharmendra Kumar Choubey, Aged 32 years,
S/o Shri B.B. Choubey,
R/o : M.I.G. 57, Phase 4, Kabir Nagar,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Complainant.
Vs.
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office No.2,
Amar Complex, Jeevan Beema Marg,
Pandri, Near Railway Crossing,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Opposite Party
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
Shri O.P. Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri P.K. Paul, , Advocate for the O.P.
ORDER
Dated : 29/January/2018 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. The complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.P. seeking insurance claim amount of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA- 9807 of Rs.21,05,069/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Five Thousand and Sixty Nine), Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) towards compensation for financial loss, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) towards compensation for mental agony, along with interest @ 18% p.a.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant purchased the truck of Tata Motors bearing // 2 // registration No.C.G.07-CA-9807 with the financial help of Magma Finance for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The engine no. of the vehicle is BB4148758 and Chassis No. is C-02248. The above vehicle was insured with the O.P. under the Policy No.2705003114P111426020 which is valid for the period from 22.03.2015 to 21.03.2016. On 06.09.2015, the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA-9807, Anuj Kumar Gupta parked the vehicle at Bahadarabad of Haridwar after unloading the goods of the truck, from where on 07.09.2015, unknown person gave some intoxicating substance to the driver Anuj Kumar and Cleaner Suresh, due to which they became unconscious and they took the vehicle, intimation regarding which was given to Police Station Bahadrabad. The complainant immediate gave intimation regarding the incident to the O.P. on 08.09.2015 through email and thereafter on 24.09.2015 gave intimation in writing to the O.P. The complainant deposited the documents with the O.P. along with application for obtaining claim amount. On being demand made by the O.P. for Khatma Prativedan, the complainant obtained the same from Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar and immediately submitted the same to the office of the O.P. in the month of January, 2017. The complainant immediately gave intimation regarding theft of the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA-9807 in the office of the O.P. through email and the police copy regarding the missing of one key of the vehicle was given to the O.P. Inspite of giving information and documents, the claim of the complainant was kept // 3 // pending for a long time by the O.P. and ultimately the claim was repudiated and thus the O.P. committed deficiency in service. The complainant sent legal notice to the O.P. on 31.07.2017 and requested the O.P. to reconsider its decision and to again settle his claim. In spite of receiving notice, the O.P. again without perusing the documents attached with the claim form, repudiated his claim and committed deficiency in service due to which the complainant suffered financial loss. Hence the instant complaint.
3. The O.P. filed its written statement and averred that the complainant purchased the truck bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA- 9807 for commercial purpose and used the same for the above purpose, therefore, the case is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant averred that the insured truck bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA-9807 was stolen on 07.09.2015 from near canal Bahadrabad, Haridwar (Uttrakhand) while it was parked at a public place, which is doubtful and is violation of the insurance policy. On 09.09.2015 at 5.00 P.M., the brother of the complainant Pradeep Kumar Choubey submitted letter in writing and lodged First Information Report before Officer Incharge, Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar (Uttrakhand) in which it is mentioned that on 09.09.2015 when the driver Anuj and helper Suresh became conscious, then they informed all facts. Thus, it is mentioned that on 09.09.2015 when the workers of the complainant became conscious, then he came to know regarding the alleged theft. In the FIR it is not mentioned that the // 4 // complainant and his brother received information regarding the incident through Police. At the time of incident, the complainant was residing at Raipur (C.G.) and it is mentioned that Pradeep Kumar Choubey is residing at Village Belaur, Police Station Buxar, District Buxar (Bihar), whereas the place of theft of the vehicle comes within Bahadrabad Police Station, District Haridwar (Uttrakhand). These places are situated in different States and are situated at very distance and it is possible that some time will be taken in lodging report. In the letter written by the brother of the complainant and in the First Information Report, it is not mentioned that the key was taken out from the pocket of the driver or helper or they kept the key in any other place safely from where key was taken and truck was stolen. The complainant has left the vehicle negligently and irresponsibly at the public place and also did not submit original key of the vehicle and left the key in the dashboard, which is violation of Condition No.5 of the insurance policy. The complainant has lodged the FIR after two days of the incident and also did not give intimation to the Insurance Co. immediately which is violation of condition no.1 of the insurance policy. The complainant vide letter dated 24.09.2015 informed the O.P. regarding the incident of theft. The complainant has not immediately gave intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle to the R.T.O and gave intimation on 22.06.2015, whereas he was required to given intimation immediately. The O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
// 5 //
4. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure 1 is intimation given to the Insurance Company through email on 08.09.2015, Annexure 2 is Police Report dated 09.09.2015, Annexure 3 is intimation given to the Police on 24.09.2015 in writing, Annexure 4 is receipt, Annexure 5 is intimation given by the Insurance Co. regarding repudiation of claim, Annexure 6 is notice dated 31.07.2017 sent by the complainant through advocate, Annexure 7 is reply sent by the Insurance Co. to the notice, Annexure 8 is paper cutting of Daily newspaper Amar Ujala Haridwar edition dated 10.09.2015 Annexure 9 is paper cutting of Daily Newspaper Dainik Jagran Haridwar edition dated 10.09.2015, Annexure 10 is insurance policy, Annexure 11 is Registration Certificate Details of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA-9807.
5. The O.P. has filed documents. Document OP-1 is GCV Public Carrier Other Than 3 Wheeler Package Policy, OP-2 is intimation given by the complainant to the O.P. on 24.09.2015 regarding theft of the vehicle, OP-3 is affidavit of the complainant, OP-4 is Final Report, OP-5 is copy of First Information Report, OP-6 is letter sent by Pradeep Kumar Choubey to the Officer Incharge, Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, OP-7 is email sent by the complainant, OP-8 is letter dated 22.06.2016 sent by the complainant to the Additional Regional Transport Authority, Durg, OP-9 is letter dated 23.02.2017 sent by the complainant to the O.P., OP-10 is repudiation letter dated 27.07.2017 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, OP-11 is registered notice dated 31.07.2017 sent by Shri Omprakash Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the complainant to the // 6 // O.P., OP-12 is reply dated 03.08.2017 of the notice sent by the O.P. to the complainant, OP-13 is Investigation Report dated 20.11.2015 of Shri Krishna Kumar G.R., OP-14 is letter dated 18.04.2017 sent by the complainant to the O.P.
6. Shri O.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has argued that the complainant is registered owner of truck bearing registration No.C.G. 07-CA-9807 and it was insured with the O.P. for the period from 22.03.2015 to 21.03.2016. On 06.09.2015, during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the driver of the vehicle Anuj Kumar Gupta had parked the vehicle at Bahadarabad of Haridwar after unloading the goods of the truck from where on 07.09.2015, unknown person gave some intoxicating substance to the driver Anuj Kumar Gupta and cleaner Suresh, due to consumption of the intoxicating substance they became unconscious and the miscreants took the vehicle in question and they left the driver and cleaner of the vehicle in unconscious condition. When the driver became conscious, he informed the complainant regarding the incident and thereafter the complainant gave intimation regarding incident to the O.P. through email on 08.09.2015. Thereafter the complainant gave written intimation regarding the incident on 24.09.2015 to the O.P. and the complainant deposited all the relevant documents to the O.P., but the O.P. did not allow the claim of the complainant and repudiated his claim on the ground that the vehicle was left unattended and the incident of theft is dubious. The act of the O.P. comes within the category of deficiency in // 7 // service, therefore, the complainant is entitled for getting the reliefs, as prayed by him in the relief clause of the complaint. The complaint may be allowed. He placed reliance on Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and Another (2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases 724.
7. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. has argued that the matter was investigated by the Investigator and it was found that the vehicle in question was parked in a public place and the vehicle was left unattended. The incident is doubtful. The statement is also contradictory. The brother of the complainant, Pradeep Kumar Choubey submitted letter in wirng and lodged First Information Report before Police Station, Bahadrabad, District Haridwar in which it is mentioned that on 09.09.2015, when the driver Anuj and helper Suresh became conscious, then they informed all facts. ON 09.09.2015, when the workers of the complainant became conscious then, the complainant came to know regarding the alleged theft. In the First Information Report, it is not mentioned that the complainant and his brother received information regarding the theft through Police. At the time of incident, the complainant was residing at Raipur (C.G.) and the incident took place within jurisdiction of District Haridwar The statement of the complainant and the First Information Report is contradictory, therefore, the act of loot or theft is doubtful. The intimation was not given to the concerned R.T.O. The complainant did not submit the original key of the vehicle. The O.P. has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from O.P., // 8 // therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on M/s. BHS Industries Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corp. & Anr. 2015 NCJ 761 (SC); Bhai Bhagtu Cotton Factory & another Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Others, 1986-99 CONSUMER3556 (NS); Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sunder, II (2014) CPJ 567 (NC).
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the documents filed by the parties in the complaint case.
9. The complainant has pleaded that the complainant is the registered owner of truck bearing registration No.C.G.-07-CA-9807, which was purchased by him with the financial help of Magma Finance Company for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The vehicle was insured with the O.P. for the period from 22.03.2015 to 21.03.2016. The O.P. admitted that the vehicle truck bearing registration No.C.G.07-CA-9807 was insured with the O.P. for the period from 22.03.2015 to 21.03.2016.
10. According to the complainant, on 06.09.2015, the driver Anuj Kumar Gupta unloaded the truck at Haridwar and parked the vehicle near canal at Bahadrabad in the parking place. On 07.09.2015, some unknown person came to driver Anup Kumar Gupta and cleaner Suresh and gave them intoxicating substance and after consuming the intoxicating substance they became unconscious and the vehicle was // 9 // taken by them from the place where the vehicle was parked. The driver and cleaner were left in unconscious condition.
11. According to the O.P., the statement of the complainant and First Information Report is contradictory. According to the complainant, on 09.09.2015 at 5.00 P.M. , the brother of the complainant submitted letter in writing and lodged First Information Report before Police Station, Bahadrabad, District Haridwar. On 09.09.2015 when the driver Anuj and Suresh became unconscious, in these circumstances it is not possible for them to inform regarding the incident to the brother of the complainant. The complainant and his brother received information regarding the incident through police is doubtful. In the First Information Report, it is not mentioned that the complainant and his brother have received information regarding the incident form the Police, therefore, the incident is doubtful. The above contention of the O.P. is not acceptable.
12. So far as the First Information Report is concerned, an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is a very important document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation. The FIR is not an encyclopaedia. All details is not essential to be given in FIR. Mention of minute details of prosecution case or evidence on which prosecution proposes to rely at trial is not necessary. The law requires FIR to contain basic prosecution case and not minute details. Even if an accused is not named in the FIR // 10 // he can be held guilty if prosecution leads reliable and satisfactory evidence.
13. Document Annexure 2 is written report given by Pradeep Kumar Choubey on 09.09.2015 to Officer Incharge, Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar in which it is mentioned thus :- "
"lsok esa Jheku Fkkuk/;{k egksn;
Fkkuk cgknjkckn ftyk gfj}kj egksn;
fuosnu bl izdkj gS fd esjs HkkbZ /kesZUnz dqekj pkScs ds uke ij Vªd ftldk uEcj C.G.-07CA 9807 gSA fnukad 06-09-15 dks mDr Vªd dks esjs HkkbZ dk MªkbZoj vuqt dqekj xqIrk iq= foa/;kpy izlkn xqIrk fuokl xzke Hkkstiqj Fkkuk uxj mUVkjh ftyk x<ok >kj[k.M o gSYij lqjs"k dqekj eky ysdj eq0 uxj vk;k FkkA eq0 uxj esa eky dks [kkyh djokdj gfj}kj ls eky Hkjus ds fy;s og gfj}kj esa vk;k Fkk gfj}kj ds cgknjkckn dh ugj okyh ikfdZx esa Vªd jkf= djhc 10-00 cts [kM+k dj fn;kA fnukad 07-09-15 dks ikfdZx esa gh vuqt dks rhu yksx feys tks vius vkidks MªkbZoj crk jgs FksA ¼ftudks lkeus vkus ij igpku ldrs gS½ tks vuqt ls ckrphr djus yxs rFkk yxHkx jkf= 09-30 cts vuqt o gSYij lqjs"k rFkk mu rhu yksxksa us feydj ikfdZx esa [kkuk [kk;k] mu rhu yksxksa us vuqt o gsYij lqjs"k ds dksYMfMaªd esa dqN u"khyk inkFkZ feyk dj fiyk fn;k ftlls vuqt o gsYij lqjs"k csgks"k gks x;s vkSj rhuksa yksxksa us ikfdZx ls mDr Vªd pksjh dj ys x;sA fnukad 09-09-15 esjs HkkbZ ds MªkbZoj vuqt o gsYij lqjs"k dks gks"k vk;k rks mUgksus eq>s lkjk okD;k crk;kA vr% egksn; ls fuosnu gS fd esjs HkkbZ ds Vªd ds pksjh gks tkus ds lEcU/k esa fjiksVZ fy[kdj dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsaA "
// 11 //
14. In the Report, it is specifically mentioned that on 09.09.2015 when the driver Anuj and clearner Suresh became conscious, then they narrated the incident to Pradeep Kumar Choubey and Pradeep Kumar Choubey sent written report to the Police Station Bahadrabad. In document Annexure 2, the date and seal of Police Station, is affixed.
15. In the written report, it is also mentioned thus :- "
"lsok esa Jheku Fkkuk/;{k egksn; Fkkuk cgknjkckn ftyk gfj}kj egksn; fuosnu bl izdkj gS fd esjs HkkbZ /kesZUnz dqekj pkScs ds uke ij Vªd ftldk uEcj C.G.-07CA 9807 gSA fnukad 06-09-15 dks mDr Vªd dks esjs HkkbZ dk MªkbZoj vuqt dqekj xqIrk iq= foa/;kpy izlkn xqIrk fuokl xzke Hkkstiqj Fkkuk uxj mUVkjh ftyk x<ok >kj[k.M o gSYij lqjs"k dqekj eky ysdj eq0 uxj vk;k FkkA eq0 uxj esa eky dks [kkyh djokdj gfj}kj ls eky Hkjus ds fy;s og gfj}kj esa vk;k Fkk gfj}kj ds cgknjkckn dh ugj okyh ikfdZx esa Vªd jkf= djhc 10- 00 cts [kM+k dj fn;kA fnukad 07-09-15 dks ikfdZx esa gh vuqt dks rhu yksx feys tks vius vkidks MªkbZoj crk jgs FksA ¼ftudks lkeus vkus ij igpku ldrs gS½ tks vuqt ls ckrphr djus yxs rFkk yxHkx jkf= 09-30 cts vuqt o gSYij lqjs"k dks dksfYMªad esa dqN u"khyk inkFkZ feyk dj fiyk fn;k ftlls vuqt o gsYij lqjs"k csgks"k gks x;s vkSj rhuksa yksxksa us ikfdZx ls mDr Vªd pksjh dj ys x;sA fnukad 09-09-15 esjs HkkbZ ds MªkbZoj vuqt o gsYij lqjs"k dks gks"k vk;k rks mUgksus eq>s lkjk okD;k crk;kA vr% egksn; ls fuosnu gS fd esjs HkkbZ ds Vªd ds pksjh gks tkus ds lEcU/k esa fjiksVZ fy[kdj dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsaA Sd gLrk{kj vxzzsth vizkfIr izkFkhZ Sd iznhi dqekj pkScs i= fofiu fcgkjh pkScs fuokl xzke csykMj Fkkuk cDlj ftyk cDlj fcgkj eksckby uacj 0973426544 fnukad 09-09-15"
// 12 //
16. The O.P. has filed final report and Investigation Report of Shri Krishna Kumar G.R. dated 20.11.2015. In the Investigation Report, Shri Krishna Kumar G.R. mentioned that "the undersigned had also enquired about the intimation of theft of vehicle no.CG-07/CA-9807 at A.R.T.O. Durg. The authorities have not received the intimation till date regarding the theft of the aforesaid vehicle." In the investigation report, it is also mentioned that acting upon the instructions, the undersigned had at first contacted over the cell phone no. of the registered owner mentioned in the claim form i.e. 96512- 83942. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Choubey had received the call and informed that he is residing at Village Belaur, Distt. Buxar (Bihar). He has further advised the undersigned to meet him at Village Belaur for the investigation proceedings". In the Investigation Report, it is further mentioned that "The undersigned had conducted the verifications of Registration Certificate, Fitness, National Permit and Authorisation of stolen vehicle no.C.G.-07/CA- 9807." But in the Investigation Report, it is not mentioned that the Investigator visited the Police Station for confirmation of the incident.
17. Looking to the Final Report and written report, it is established that the incident of theft of the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.-07-CA-9807 took place on 07.09.2015. Merely there is some contradiction between the First Information Report and the Statement of the complainant, it is not sufficient to discard the written report made by the brother of the complainant, therefore, it can safely be held that the incident of theft of the vehicle in question took place on 07.09.2015 and some unknown miscreant after giving intoxicating substance to the driver and cleaner of the vehicle in question, // 13 // took away the vehicle in question from the possession of the driver and cleaner. Hence it is established that incident of theft of vehicle in question was occurred, therefore, the defence of the O.P. that the incident of theft is doubtful, is not acceptable.
18. According to the O.P., the vehicle in question was left unattended. The O.P. placed reliance on M/s BHS Industries Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation & Anr. (Supra). The facts of above judgments are quite distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. So far as judgment relied by the O.P. i.e. Bhai Ghagtu Cotton Factory & Another Vs. National Insurance Company Ld. And Others (Supra) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sunder (Supra), the facts of these cases are also quite distinguishable from the facts of the instant case.
19. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pravin Krushna Takari, I (2018) CPJ 80 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 14 (1)(d), 21(b) - Insurance - Theft of vehicle - "Proper precautions" allegedly not taken - Claim repudiated - Alleged deficiency in service - Contention, when vehicle was parked in open space and door had no lock, complainant ought to have appointed some one as security personnel for vehicle - Not accepted - Theft took place during validity period of insurance policy and that incident was duly intimated to Insurance Company and an FIR was also lodged in concerned police station - Term 'reasonable care' cannot be construed to advantage of Insurance Company - No fundamental breach of any conditions stipulated in contract - Claim allowed on non-standard basis - Interest @ 9% p.a. awarded."
// 14 //
20. In Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. IV (2017) CPJ 10 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"11. It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds. Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy-holders in the insurance industry. If the reason for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified and found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act, aims at providing better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the act.
12. In the instant case, the appellant has given cogent reasons for the delay of 8 days in informing the respondent about the incident. The Investigator had verified the theft to be genuine and the payment of Rs.7,85,000/- towards the claim was approved by the Corporate Claims Manager, which, in our opinion, is just and proper. The National Commission, therefore, is not justified in rejecting the claim of appellant without considering the explanation for the delay. We are also of the view that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation."
// 15 // 21 In Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :
"12. Reference in this case may be made to the decision of National Commission rendered in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Gian Singh, reported in II (2006) CPJ 83 (NC) = 2006 CTJ 221 (CP) ((NCDRC). In that decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) it has been held that in a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non-standard basis. The said decision of the National Commission has been referred to by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Nitin Khandelwal, reported in IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) = 2008 (7) SCALE 351. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, in the case of Nitin Khandelwal (supra) this Court held :
"...... The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis."
14. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak, reported in II (2006) CPJ 144 (NC). In that case also the question was, whether the insurance company can repudiate the claims in a case where the vehicle carrying passengers and the driver did not have a proper driving licence and met with an accident. While granting claim on non-standard basis the National Commission set out in its judgment the guidelines issued by the insurance company about settling all such non-standard claims. The said guidelines are set out below :-
// 16 // Sr. No. Description Percentage of settlement
(i) Under declaration of Deduct 3 years' difference in premium licenced capacity. from the amount of claim or deduct 25% of claim amount, whatever is higher.
Overloading of vehicles
(ii) beyond licensed carrying Pay claims not exceeding 75% of
capacity. admissible claim.
(iii) Any other breach of Pay upto 75% of admissible claim.
warranty/ condition of policy including limitation as to use.
22. The intimation regarding theft of the vehicle in question was given by the complainant to the O.P. The complainant specifically pleaded that the intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle in question was given to the O.P. on 08.09.2015 through email and thereafter written report to the O.P. was made on 24.09.2015. The written report regarding the incident was given to the concerned Police Station on 09.09.2015 and the incident took place on 07.09.2015. The brother of the complainant received the information regarding the incident and he immediately gave written report to Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar. In Annexure 2, the offence No.131/2015 under Section 328, 279 IPC was registered in Police Station, Bahadrabad. The O.P. has also filed final report. In the Final report, the date of registration of FIR is mentioned 09.09.2015. It appears that the report was lodged immediately after receiving the // 17 // information anif any delay was caused in lodging FIR, then proper explanation for the delayed FIR, has been given by the complainant.
23. The Offence under Section 328 of IPC was registered by the Police. In Section 328 of IPC, it is specifically mentioned that "Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
24. In the instant case also, it is specifically mentioned that some intoxicating substances was given to the driver and cleaner and thereafter the vehicle was took away by the miscreants, which also shows that the incident of theft was took place.
25. According to the O.P. the intimation regarding the incident was not given by the complainant to the concerned R.T.O, but in the instant case, the FIR was lodged and the intimation regarding the incident was also given to the O.P., therefore, merely not sending report to the R.T.O. the claim of the complainant cannot be repudiated in toto.
26. On the basis of judgment in Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. (Supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pravin Krushna Takari (Supra), in the instant case, the delay in lodging FIR, has been satisfactorily explained by the complainant.
// 18 //
27. The complainant is entitled to get the claim amount on non- standard basis. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle in question is Rs.21,05,069/-, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the O.P. on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of Rs.21,05,069/- which comes out to Rs.15,78,802/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Two).
28. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant, is partly allowed and it is directed that :-
(i) The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.15,78,802/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Two) to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
(ii) The O.P. will pay interest @ 9%% p.a. on Rs.15,78,802/-
from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 07.10.2017 till realization.
(iii)) The parties shall bear their own cost of this complaint.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
29 /01/2018 29 /01/2018 29/01/2018