State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Guru Dutt Sharm Son Of Shri Tikka Ram, ... on 31 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.461 of 2011 Date of Institution: 31.03.2011 Date of Decision: 31.10.2012 1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ist Floor, City Centre, Opp. I.B. College, Panipat (Haryana). 2. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Office 570, Rectifier House, Naigam Gross Road, Wadala (W), Mumbai-400031 (India) Through its Manager (Legal) Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.212-214, First Floor Sector 34A, Chandigarh. Appellants (Ops) Versus Guru Dutt Sharm son of Shri Tikka Ram, resident of V&PO Uchana Tehsil and District Karnal, Haryana. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Ms. Jaimini Tiwari, Advocate for appellants. Sh. Jyoti Parkash Sharma, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 03.12.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Karnal whereby complaint bearing No.260/2009 filed by complainant (respondent herein) against the appellants-opposite parties was accepted on the following terms:-
The complainant has not taken reasonable steps for the safeguard of the vehicle from loss or damage. This shows that the complainant has violated the aforesaid condition No.4 of the insurance policy. In our opinion, the complainant is entitled to get claim of the said vehicle on non standard basis i.e. 75per cent of Rs.3,10,000/- i.e. Insureds declared value. Therefore, we direct the Ops to pay 75% of the insureds declared value i.e. 75% of Rs.3,10,000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondent are directed to pay interest on the said amount to the complainant at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 09.04.2009 till its actual realization. The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the harassment caused to him alongwith Rs.5000/- for the litigation charges. The complaint is accepted accordingly.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that car bearing registration No.HR-05T/7830 of the respondent-complainant was insured with the appellants-opposite parties for Rs.3,10,000/- for the period 19.02.2008 to 18.02.2009. On 12.06.2008 an unknown person came in a car bearing No.HR06-N-5880 on the pretext of purchasing complainants car. Complainants brother handed over complainants car to the complainant for the purpose of drive test and the said person fled away with complainants car and did not return. FIR No.190 dated 16.6.2008 under Section 379/420 IPC was registered in Police Station Sadar, Karnal but the vehicle could not be traced. Complainant submitted claim with the opposite parties but the same was repudiated on the ground that the complainant failed to take care of his vehicle as the brother of the complainant had handed over the same to an unknown person. Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein they justified repudiation of complainants claim on the ground stated in the preceding para of this order and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the opposite party as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
Arguments heard. File perused.
There is delay of 71 days in filing of the instant appeal the condonation of which has been sought by moving an application. The application is supported with an affidavit of Shri Krishna Kanth, Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Chandigarh. While dealing with the application for condonation of delay, it is not disputed that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity, but at the same time it is to be taken into consideration that in case of any legal infirmity is committed by the District Consumer Forum while passing the impugned order which is apparent on record, the same cannot be allowed to continue as it would amount to no order in the eyes of law. Reference is made to the observation made by the Honble Supreme wherein it has been held that when the substantial justice and technical approach are pitted against each other, the former has to be performed. It has further been held that the words Sufficient Cause have to be interpreted to advance the cause of justice. The Honble Apex Court in case cited as State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok A.O. and others, 2005(3) SCC 752 has held as under:-
11.What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be held down by hard and fast rules. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Misra (1975)(2) SCC (840) this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction. In Brij Inder Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram (ILR) (1918) 45 Cal. 94 (PC) it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. In Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) a Bench of three-Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.
In the instant case the District Consumer Forum has passed the impugned order without appreciating the facts of the case and therefore, we think it a fit case to condone the delay. Hence, the delay of 71 days in filing of the present appeal is condoned.
On behalf of the appellants it is contended that the complainant violated the condition No.4 of the Insurance Policy by handing over his vehicle to an unknown person. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards the condition No.4 of the policy, reproduced herein below:-
4. The Insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not the left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effect, any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insureds own risk.
In view of the above noted condition No.4 of the policy, we find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellants. It is well settled principle of law that no relief can be granted beyond the terms and conditions of the policy. Reference is made to case law cited as UNITED India INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus HARCHAND RAI CHANDAN LAL, (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 644, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:-
Held, the terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties and they have to abide by the definition given therein, and all those expressions appearing in the policy have to be construed as it is and something cannot be added, subtracted or substituted Honble Supreme Court in the latest pronouncement cited as Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another, 2011 CTJ 11 (Supreme Court) (CP), has observed that:-
22. Before embarking on an examination of the correctness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a contract of insurance. It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed, and no exception can be made on the ground of equity.
24. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount important, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties.
The facts and circumstances of the instant case are fully attracted to HARCHAND RAI CHANDAN LALs case (Supra) and Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd case (Supra). Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any accidental insurable benefit in view of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
Hence, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeal and Rs.2,65,726/- deposited on 5.5.2001 as per order of State Commission, would be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 31.10.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member