STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.887 of 2018
Date of Institution: 18.07.2018
Date of final hearing: 18.04.2023
Date of pronouncement: 19.04.2023
Nitesh Kumar Bhardwaj, aged 43 years, son of Shri Naresh Kumar resident of village Banipur, Tehsil Bawal, Distt. Rewari.
…..Appellant
Versus
1. M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its General Manager 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, 40000001,
2. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO 2nd Floor, Opp LIC office, Brass Market, Rewari, through its Branch Manager.
3. M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No. 147-148 Second floor, Section 9C, Madhya Marg Chandigarh-160009 through its Branch Manager.
…..Respondents
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Present:- Mr. Rao Ajender Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 88 days in filing of this appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay which constitute sufficient cause and same supported by affidavit.
2. Complainant-Nitesh Kumar Bhardwaj; has filed this appeal to challenge the legality of order dated 16.03.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.100 of 2017, which was allowed.
3. Factual matrix is that: Tata Sumo vehicle No.HR47AT-9125 belonging to complainant, insured with the opposite parties (OPs) was stolen on 31.12.2011. Prompt FIR No.2 was lodged on 01.01.2012 in Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak. Complainant took recourse for getting insured amount by submitting required documents. His claim was repudiated which led to filing of complaint by him.
4. OPs raised contest by pleading that complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of theft. It was owned by one Manjit. Complainant did not submit “second key” of the vehicle which is violation of terms and condition of policy and thus claim is not payable and rightly repudiated.
5. Parties led their respective evidence.
6. On subjectively analyzing the same, learned District Commission, Rewari has allowed the complaint by directing OPs to pay 75 % of ID value of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant within 45 days, failing which payable amount would fetch interest @ 9% p.a.
7. Still feeling dissatisfied, complainant-appellant has filed present appeal.
8. At the very outset it has been pointed out by learned counsel for respondents/OPs that direction contained in the order dated 16.03.2018 of District Consumer Commission has been complied with. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for complainant.
9. Learned counsel for appellant/complainant has urged that by withholding of 25% of IDV value of the vehicle respondents/OPs has faulted, which is deficiency in its service. Refuting the contention learned counsel for respondents has urged that insurer has adopted a goodwill gesture towards complainant by paying 75% of IDV of Rs.5,00,000/- which was insured value of stolen vehicle HR-47-AT-9125. Learned counsel for insurer has admitted that theft took place on 31.12.2011 and there was prompt FIR in this regard which was lodged on 01.01.2012. Annexure R-3/Ex.C-12 is the letter dated 22.11.2016 addressed to complainant/appellant vide which respondents/OPs while repudiating the claim offered 75% of the claim amount towards non-standard settlement as a goodwill gesture to complainant/appellant. It would be pertinent to reproduce below the relevant text of Annexure A-3/C-12:-
“Further, non-submission of 2nd original key of vehicle, which gives rise to the question whether reasonable care in safeguarding the vehicle has been exercised by you as per policy terms and conditions. In this context, we would like to draw your attention to the following conditions under the vehicle insurance policy:
Condition No.: 5 “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 time free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the vent of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the Insured’s own risk”.
The said claim is breach of the condition above, thereby rendering the claim a fit case for repudiation.
However, we have examined your response provided to our investigator and without prejudice to our rights to repudiate offer you a non standard settlement @75% of the claim amount less excess as a goodwill gesture. The said offer is also made taking into cognizance the award of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance V/s Amalendu Sahu, case number 2703/2010 whereby the Hon’ble Court had awarded a non standard claim settlement @ 75% of admissible claim where there is any breach of warranty/condition of policy”.
10. Exactly, one same analogy; learned District Consumer Commission while allowing the complaint has directed OPs/respondents to pay 75% of IDV value of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant on non-standard basis. Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted during course of arguments that there was violation of condition No. 5 on the part of insured and despite that; the insured has been compensated to the extent of 75% of IDV of stolen vehicle. This being so, there cannot be any further indulgence in well-reasoned order dated 16.03.2018 of District Consumer Commission, in favour of appellant/complainant. Impugned Order dated 16.03.2018 is maintained and affirmed. Accordingly, present appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
11. Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
12. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 19th April, 2023
Naresh Katyal Judicial Member
