State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Ishwari Devi on 11 April, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 235 / 2011
National Insurance Company Limited
through its Regional Manager
Rajpur Road, Dehradun
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2
Versus
1. Smt. Ishwari Devi W/o Sh. Ghasita Ram
R/o 623/4, Ramnagar Road
C/o Geo-Hydromechs (India), Roorkee
At present R/o 102, Shyam Nagar, Roorkee
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Maruti Insurance, Shakumbari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi Road, Roorkee
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 1
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Gopal Narsan, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
Sh. Amit Sharma, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 11/04/2016
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 28.03.2011 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 340 of 2010.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 23.04.2006, the respondent No. 1 - complainant had purchased a Maruti Alto LX car from Rohan Motors Limited, Dehradun for sum of Rs. 2,67,184/-. The said vehicle was later on allotted registration 2 No. UA08-F-8869. The complainant had got the said vehicle insured through opposite party No. 1 - Maruti Insurance, Shakumbari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. with opposite party No. 2 - National Insurance Company Limited for the period from 20.06.2008 to 19.06.2009 at an IDV of Rs. 1,89,000/-. During the validity of the policy of insurance, the insured vehicle was stolen in the night intervening 06/07.07.2008 from outside the house of the complainant, in regard to which an FIR was lodged with the P.S. Kotwali, Gangnahar, Roorkee on 07.07.2008 and a criminal case No. 189 of 2008 under Section 379 IPC was registered. However, the police could not find out the culprits, nor the stolen property could be recovered and, as such, the police submitted the Final Report, which was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee vide order dated 20.07.2009. The intimation regarding theft of the insured vehicle was given to the opposite parties on 08.07.2008 and all the required documents were submitted by the complainant through the opposite party No. 1 with the opposite party No. 2, but the claim was not settled. Therefore, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The opposite party No. 1 - Maruti Insurance, Shakumbari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. filed written statement before the District Forum and stated that the claim was to be settled by the insurance company.
4. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the intimation regarding theft of the insured vehicle was given to the insurance company vide letter dated 03.02.2009, i.e., after about 7 months' of the occurrence; that since there was inordinate delay in reporting the loss to the insurance company and, as such, the claim was not payable and was rightly repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 11.12.2009;
3that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not giving immediate intimation to the insurance company upon occurrence of loss and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
5. The District Forum after perusing the evidence on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 28.03.2011 and directed the appellant - opposite party No. 2 to pay compensation of Rs. 1,89,000/- to the respondent No. 1 - complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed the present appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There is no dispute with regard to the insurance of the vehicle and its theft during the validity of the policy of insurance. The insurance company has taken the stand that since the intimation regarding theft of the vehicle in the night intervening 06/07.07.2008, was given to the insurance company vide letter dated 03.02.2009, i.e., after about 7 months' of the occurrence and hence the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the claim was not payable.
7. The vehicle was stolen in the night intervening 06/07.07.2008 and an FIR with regard to the theft of the insured vehicle was lodged on 07.07.2008. The intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was duly given by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 - Maruti Insurance, Shakumbari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 08.07.2008 (Paper No. 56) and a copy of the said letter was also addressed to the opposite party No. 2 - insurance company (appellant 4 herein). The insurance company has not filed any cogent and reliable evidence to show that the said letter was not served upon them or they have not received any such letter. Thus, it can not be said that there was any delay on the part of the complainant in reporting the matter to the insurance company and the insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that there was delay on the part of the complainant in giving intimation of theft of the insured vehicle to the insurance company and the District Forum was justified in allowing the consumer complaint.
8. So far as the quantum is concerned, the vehicle was insured at an IDV of Rs. 1,89,000/- and hence the compensation of Rs. 1,89,000/- awarded by the District Forum is perfectly justified. It is a settled law that the insurance company is bound by the value of the vehicle mentioned in the insurance policy, as it has charged the premium according to the value of the vehicle mentioned in the policy. The interest and litigation expenses awarded by the District Forum are also justified. Thus, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K