Haryana

Karnal

CC/75/2016

Sunil Kumar S/o Mohinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amrit Pal Singh

23 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 75 of 2016

                                                    Date of instt.10.03.2016

                                                     Date of decision 23.10.2017

 

Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Mohinder Singh resident of House no.D-384, Kalandari Gate, Karnal.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus.

National Insurance Company Ltd. opposite Bus Stand, Old G.T. Road, Karnal District Karnal.

                                                                        ..…Opposite Party.

 

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh……….President.

                Ms. Veena Rani………Member

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:   Sh. Amrit Pal Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh. Manjul Mishra Advocate for opposite party.

       

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got insured his motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05-AM-4853 from opposite party, vide insurance policy no.39010231146202458215, valid from 16.10.2014 to 15.10.2015.  On 12.4.2015 at 8.30 p.m. the motorcycle of complainant was forcibly snatched by some unknown person. The victim was assaulted by the accused by lathi. The victim fell down after receiving and his purse also fell down, which could not be recovered. He lodged an First Information Report no.201 dated 13.4.2015 against unknown snatcher under section 392 I.P.C.in that regard. The police investigated the matter, but they could not trace the culprit and motorcycle also. Thus, police submitted a report of untraceable report to the concerned court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. He lodged a claim with the opposite party on 23.4.2015 in that regard, but opposite party did not pay any claim and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Then, he served a legal notice dated 25.1.2016 upon the opposite party, but it did not yield any result. Lastly, the opposite party has wrongly repudiated his claim, vide letter dated 01.02.2016. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and filed the present complaint.

 2.            Notice of the complaint was given to opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement raising Preliminary Objections regarding maintainability; cause of action and locus standi; deficiency in service and concealment of material facts. The true facts are that as per version of the complainant, the motorcycle bearing registration no.HR05-AM-4853 was snatched from the complainant on 12.4.2015 at 8.30 p.m. and FIR was lodged by him on 13.4.2015 whereas the OP was informed after a gap of 12 days which is clear cut violation of terms and conditions of the policy since notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or final inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. On merits, it has been submitted that complainant was asked to produce the information and documents mentioned in the letter dated 24.4.2015 but out of said documents, driving licence was not provided and the reason for delay was also not provided to the opposite party, thus the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 27.1.2016.  Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Ram Singh Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and close his evidence 2.5.2017 .

4.             On the other hand, opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms Reena Basan ADMN Officer Ex.OPW1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 16.6.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant got insured his motorcycle in question with the opposite party, vide policy no.39010231146202458215, valid from 16.10.2014 to 15.10.2015 and on 12.4.2015 the said motorcycle was forcibly snatched by some unknown person. He further argued that on the next day just after the theft/snatch of the motorcycle he lodged the First Information Report no.201 dated 13.04.2015 in Police Station Sadar Karnal. He further argued that on 23.4.2015 complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party and supplied all the documents as required by the opposite party, but opposite party wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of late intimation. In support of his version  the learned counsel for complainant produced authorities titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh reported in II(2006) CPJ page 83 (NC); Mohammad Ejaj Vs. UII, 2014(4) CLT page 161 (Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana) and 2016(2) CLT page 434 (Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana) titled as Future General India Insurance Co. Lts. Vs. Satbir.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the theft took place on 12.04.2015 and intimation of the same was given to the opposite party on 23.04.2015 i.e. after the gap of 12 days. So, the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 27.1.2014 on the ground of delay and not supplied the documents like driving licence. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted an authority cited in 2015 (3) CLT page 90 (NC) titled as Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanwal Keet Singh Gill.

8.             Firstly we decide the plea raised by the OP that complainant had not supplied the documents demanded by the OP, vide letter 24.4.2014 i.e. driving licence. In this regard, complainant filed the affidavit of Ram Singh who was driver of the vehicle in question at the time of occurrence. In his affidavit Ram Singh deposed that three unknown boy came on motorcycle and one boy gave a danda blow on his head due to which he fell down on the road and snatched his motorcycle. His purse was also fell down and his valuable documents including driving licence which was in his pocket was also misplaced. Moreover, in the present case the vehicle in question was snatched by the robbers, therefore, there was no fault on the part of the driver in driving the vehicle.  Whether the driver of the vehicle was having a driving licence or not, this fact is not material in the present case. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OP has wrongly taken one of the ground for repudiating the claim of the complainant as non-submitting of the driving licence.

9.             Further, it is not disputed that the motorcycle in question was insured with the opposite party and during subsistence of the policy the motorcycle was snatched. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of late intimation of incident, vide letter dated 27.01.2016. The complainant lodged the First Information Report on the next day of occurrence, the copy of which is Ex.C1.  No doubt there was delay of 12 days in intimation, even then there would be no justification for the opposite party for denying the claim of the complainant in its entirely only for such a violation of term and condition. In this regard, reliance can be made to authority titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh’s case (supra) wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that in case of violation of condition of policy as to nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on non-standard basis. In authority titled as Mohammad Ejaj Vs. UII’ case(supra) it has been held that Insurance Claim-Repudiation-On the ground that there was delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR and 36 days in giving intimation to the insurance Company-IRDA have given direction to Insurance Companies not to reject genuine claims simply because of late registration of FIR and late intimation to the Insurance Company-Held-IRDA is the controlling authority of all Insurance Companies and being a statutory body, is competent to frame guidelines and issue instructions to insurance Companies which are bind upon them-Appeal accepted. In the authority cited in Future General India Insurance Co. Lts. Vs. Satbir’ case (supra), it has been held that Insurance Claim-Theft of insured tractor-Prompt FIR-Delay of 66 days in intimation to insurance company-Held-In the Circular Ref.IRDA/HLTH/MISC/CIR/216/ 09/2011 dated September 20, 2011 issued by ‘IRDA’, it has been mentioned that genuine claims should not be rejected on account of delay in intimation and that, the insurer’s decision to reject a claim must be based on “sound logic” and “Valid grounds”-Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant-Appeal dismissed.     

10.           In view of above authorities as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the claim in respect of vehicle in question should have been settled on the basis of the guidelines of non-standard settlement.

11.           As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint partly and direct the opposite party to settle the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis and to pay Rs.31,880/- i.e. 75% of Rs.42415/- the insured value of the vehicle, subject to furnishing of subrogation letter and transfer the ownership of vehicle by the complainant within 15 days in the name of opposite party. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days after furnishing the subrogation letter and ownership transfer documents by the complainant failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 23.10.2017

                                                               

                                                                 President,

                                                District Consumer Disputes

                                                Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)                     (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                              Member