Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:

     For the appellants       :      Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate
     For the respondent       :      Ex-parte


BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, PRESIDING MEMBER

This appeal has been filed by the appellant No.1 and appellant No.2/opposite party against the order dated 18.2.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant has filed this complaint before the District forum through his power of attorney, Sh.Avtar Singh S/o Sh.Kahan Singh wherein it was pleaded that he got insured his truck, bearing registration No.RJ-13-G-7108, with the opposite party, vide policy No.360900/31/07/01/00000657 for the period of 26.6.2007 to 25.6.2008 for a sum assured of Rs.5,49,000/-. The said truck was stolen on 30.8.2007 and the report to this effect was lodged with the PP Kot Mit Singh under Section 457/380 IPC and FIR No.139 was registered in PS Sultanwind. The truck could not be traced and the police issued Untraced Report dated 15.7.2008. He lodged the claim with the opposite party and submitted relevant documents from time to time. But it flatly refused to pay the claim without giving any valid reason. Hence, he filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to opposite party to make the payment of his claim. Compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

6. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties, considered the submissions of the learned counsel for appellants and have carefully perused the evidence on record.

7. The undisputed facts of the case are that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 30.8.2007 during the subsistence of the insurance policy taken by him from the opposite party for a sum assured of Rs.5,49,000/-. The report regarding theft was lodged with the PP Kot Mit Singh on 30.8.2007 i.e. on the same day by Sh.Avtar Singh S/o Sh. Kahan Singh under Section 457/380 of IPC (Ex.C-3). FIR No.139 was registered under PS Sultanwind. The police investigated the matter and declared the vehicle as untraceable. The untraceable report (Ex.C-4) was submitted to the trial court on 13.11.2007.

8. The opposite party has contended that the intimation regarding the theft was given to Insurer after a period of one month and seven days which had taken away the right of the opposite party to make efforts to trace out the stolen vehicle as well as to carry out the investigation regarding the alleged occurrence. The claim of the complainant has not yet been settled by the opposite party. It is further averred that on the receipt of the intimation regarding the theft, the complainant was asked to submit certain documents vide letter dated 2.11.2007 (Ex.R-2), which was followed by reminders Ex.R-3 to R-11. From the scrutiny of these letters it is seen that in the first letter dated 5.12.2007 (Ex.R-3) the complainant was asked to produce the registration book of the vehicle, route permit/fitness certificate of stolen vehicle, driving licence of Avtar Singh, untraceable certificate of the vehicle and to supply the English translation of the FIR. Complainant was also asked to clarify the delay in reporting the theft to the opposite party. But in subsequent reminders (Ex.R-4 to R-7) only two documents namely untraceable report and English translation of the FIR were demanded confirming thereby that other documents demanded earlier, were received by them. However, in subsequent reminders (Ex.R-8 to R-10) claim form duly filed was also demanded. The complainant has contended that he had already supplied these documents to the opposite party. He has proved on record these documents also before the District Forum as Ex.C-3 and C-4, copies of which are invariably given to the opposite party as well. Under these circumstances, it cannot be sad that the complainant has not submitted requisite documents. It is the admitted case of opposite party that they had already received intimation regarding theft (though belated) and the claim No.31/07/314 was also registered with them. This claim number is mentioned in all the reminders issued by the opposite party. Thus, it cannot be believed that he did not file the claim with opposite parties. Otherwise also, in case of theft of vehicle, only the IDV of the insured vehicle is to be paid. Even after the receipt of these documents including the untraceable report and the English version of the FIR, the opposite party has failed to settle the claim of the complainant.

10. The plain reading of this condition shows that immediate intimation in writing was required to be given to the insurance company upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage whereas in case of theft or criminal act, the insured is required to give immediate notice to the police which, in this case, had been duly given by the complainant on the date of the theft itself. The contention of the opposite party that it was deprived of its right to investigate the matter is not tenable because the theft matters are to be investigated by the police and not by the Insurance Company and claim is to be settled on the basis of the said investigation and the untraceable report. This report has already been proved on the file by the complainant. The copy of same was also given to the counsel for the opposite party.