Delhi

New Delhi

CC/925/2014

Hem Prakash Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. National Insurance Company.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2021

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI,

VIKAS BHAWAN, M-BLOCK, I.P. ESTATE, DELHI-110002

CC/925/2014

D.No._________                                                  Dated:

SH. HEM PARKASH SHARMA

S/O LATE KISHAN LAL SHARMA

R/O, A-168, MANU APARTMENTS

6 MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE-I

DELHI 110091                                                             COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

MARUTI BUSINESS HUB

D.O. VII, 50, JANPATH

NEW DELHI 110001

(THROUGH ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER)               OPPOSITE PARTY

 

CORAM : MS. POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

              SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

      MS. ADARSH NAIN, MEMBER

                                                        

                                                                    Date of Institution: 12.12.2014

                                                                    Date of decision    : 29.10.2021

SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

ORDER

Hearing Through Video Conferencing

1. Complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, thereby alleging that the vehicle of the complainant purchased Wagon R Color Pearl, bearing registration No. DL-2CAA-7146 in year 2004 and the same was insured with Opposite Party, vide policy NO. 35101031136133213267 for the period from 18.06.2013 to 17.06.2014 and  premium of Rs.2860/- was paid to the OP on IDV value of Rs.90,000/- It is further stated that the above said vehicle was stolen on 12.02.2014 when it was parked outside Jain Mandir, Nirman Vihar, Police Station, Preet Vihar, around 5.15 PM, Intimation about the theft of the car was given to the Police Station, Preet Vihar, and an FIR was registered vide FIR no. 107 dated 12.02.2014, It is also stated intimation of the theft was also given to State Transport Authority, Tilak Mark, New Delhi on 15.02.2014. The Police gave the untraced report. But the genuine claim of the stolen car is not released by OP despite complainant visiting the office of OP several times as a result of which the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financial loan. A legal notice dated 12.07.2014 through registered post was also sent to OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for the claim of IDV of the stolen car of the complainant with the interest as well as compensation of Rs.1,25000/- for causing delay, mental agony and harassment and has also sought litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
3. OP has contested the case and filed reply signed by Sh. Lajpat Arora Dy. Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. D.O. VII, Janpath, New Delhi and submitted the reason for repudiation of the claim that the vehicle was allegedly stolen on 12.02.2014 and Complainant intimated the Opposite Party NIC, on 07.07.2014 i.e. after delay of 145 Days. It is to be noted that the policy was valid till 17.06.2014 and the theft was intimated to the opposite party after expiry of policy and delay of 145 days. In para 8 of the reply filed by the opposite party states that the “Complainant violated condition No. 1 of the terms and conditions of policy and failed to intimate the company immediately, to deprive the insurance company from conducting proper investigations.” It is submitted that the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any relief.  
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record, copy of registration certificate of the vehicle, copy of insurance policy of vehicle for the period from 18-06-2013 to 17-06-2014, copy of FIR, copy of untraced report, copy of complaint to State Transport authority, Tilak Marg, New Delhi, copy of an application filed before Ld. ACMM, KKD dated 14.06.2014, copy of letter to insurance Co. dated 03.07.2014, copy of motor claim form, copy of intimation issued by OP to complainant dated 08.07.2014, copy of legal notice dated 12.07.2014 sent to OP through registered post along with copy of postal receipt and copy of repudiation letter dated 05.08.2014.
6. On the other hand, Sh. Vijay Kumar Manjhi on behalf of OP/National Insurance Company Ltd. D.O. VII, Janpath, New Delhi filed his affidavit without authority to depose and swear the evidence by way of affidavit. The deponent Sh. Vijay Kumar Manjhi categorically deposed and stated in para No.2 of the affidavit dated 08.09.2017 that the reply to the complaint has been filed by OP under the signature of deponent”, However reply/WS had filed by one Sh. Lajpat Arora Dy. Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. D.O. VII, Janpath, New Delhi.
7. This Commission has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant and OP.
8. Learned Counsel for the Complainant has filed Written Arguments wherein Ld. counsel for the Complainant has reiterated the allegations made in complaint, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Om Prakash v reliance general insurance & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017], reported in (2017) 9 SCC 724 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para no. 11 that

“ In 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 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 benefiacial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act.”

Complainant also relied upon another decision of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v Nitin Khandelwal [(2008) 11 SCC 259], where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“since the vehicle in question had been stolen, therefore, in the case of theft of vehicle, the breach of condition is not germane. It has further held in the same matter that…….. The Insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insure has obtained comprehensive policy for loss caused to the insurer…. The Insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.”

9. The Counsel for the opposite party has also filed Written Argument, wherein counsel for the opposite party has reiterated the written statement filed by the opposite party further counsel for the opposite party relied upon a judgment of The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 in the matter of “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha”, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 798  wherein held that

“In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get and enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and makes an endeavor to recover the same….

10.    We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record.  We observed that some facts are not denied by the parties such as the Policy in question, theft of the vehicle, untraced report. The OP has not placed on record the Copy of Surveyor Report as per which the loss of the vehicle in question, is to the tune of Rs.90,000/-. The OP/Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of delay in intimation.

Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the OP Insurance company instead of condoning the delay and deciding the claim on merit, arbitrarily repudiated the claim under the pretext of inordinate delay. It is pertinent to note that the vehicle of the complaint was stolen from the P.S. Preet Vihar, on 12.02.2014 and intimation was given to the Police without wasting any time vide FIR no. 107/2014 dated 12.02.2014. There is no delay in lodging the FIR, As far as the delay in filing of the intimation of the claim by the Complainant is concerned, the Complainant could not intimate the OP/NIC because the Complainant was hopeful that the concerned police would locate the vehicle. When the Police was unable to search the vehicle, the Complainant filed an application before the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Sh. S.P. Laler (ACMM,/EAST/KKD) for directing the police to inform the status and exact position the stolen vehicle of the Complainant and upon direction of Ld. ACMM, the police informed the Ld. ACMM that the vehicle was untraceable and report of the I.O. was accepted by the Ld. ACMM. It was only 26.06.2014 when the Complainant came to know that the above said vehicle is untraceable that gave the cause of action to the Complainant for lodging the claim before the opposite party who had insured the vehicle of the Complainant. As such there is no delay on the part of the Complainant. The cause of action for filing of any claim and intimating and claiming any amount from the insurance company of the theft of the vehicle arose only after the untraceable report was handed over to the Complainant on the direction of Ld. ACMM. Thereafter, the claim was lodged before the insurance company is in the 1^st week of July 2014. There was no delay in lodging the claim before the OP. As far as the theft is concerned, information was given to the Police on the same date i.e. 12.02.2014 immediately. A claim cannot be rejected in a mechanical manner. The claim of the complainant in the case has been rejected on flimsy ground without application of considerate mind.

The decision of The Hon’ble Supreme court of India, in case titled Om Prakash v reliance general insurance & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017], reported in (2017) 9 SCC 724,  Gurshinder Singh Vs Shri Ram General Insurance Co. & Anrs reported in (2020) 11 SCC 612  on 24.01.2020 and Dharmendra v/s United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors in Civil Appeal No.5705 of 2021 passed by (DB) on 13-09-2021 are squarely applicable in the present case, hence, OP cannot repudiate the claim merely on the ground of delay in intimation.

 

In view of the above judgments, we are of the considered view that the repudiation of the claim filed on behalf of the complainant was arbitrarily, wholly unwarranted and unjustified on the part of OP, which amounted to deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice. We therefore hold, OP guilty of deficiency in services and direct it as under:

1. The OP is directed to pay the claim amount of Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand Only.) towards the IDV value of the vehicle, to the Complainant within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this order.
2. If OP is fail to pay the said amount within stipulated time it shall be liable to pay interest on the sum of Rs. 90,000/- @ 10% am, from the date of this order.
3. For the deficiency of service and for adopting unfair trade practice, OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the Complainant within a period of 4 weeks, from the date of this order.

It is clarified that if OP does not pay the amount within the stipulated time OP shall be liable to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. on the entire amount payable to the Complainant on the expiry of stipulated time frame, till actual payment is made.

Ordered accordingly. Office is directed to send one true copy of this order to the parties/speed post in accordance with the rules. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in). Thereafter, file be consigned to record room.

              Announced on this 29^th Day of October, 2021.

 

 

 

       

                          (POONAM CHADHARY)

                           President

 

 

 

 

(BARIQ AHMAD)                                                      (ADARSH NAIN)

                                                            Member                                                                  Member