Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Vijay Kumar —Respondent
Revision Petition No.2782 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 03/05/2017 in Appeal No. 1015/2016 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 11.5.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Animesh Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Repudiation of insurance claim on false pleas is not justified.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Theft of insured JCB machine—District Forum allowed complaint and directed petitioner/insurance company to pay to respondent total IDV of JCB Rs.17 lakhs with 9% interest—Opposite party / insurance company has taken a false stand regarding failure of respondent / complainant to give immediate intimation in writing of theft of JCB—Only because complainant has not been able to provide documentary proof of giving intimation in writing to opposite party, his version given on affidavit cannot be rejected particularly when opposite party has been clearly shifting stand—Repudiation of insurance claim is not justified—Revision petition dismissed.
Held: On perusal of record, it transpires that first consumer complaint was filed by the respondent on 15.12.2014. Annexure – 5 to the revision petition is the copy of the written statement by the petitioner in response to the first complaint. In the said written statement, the stand taken by the petitioner / opposite party is that the intimation of theft of JCB in writing was not given by the petitioner till the date of filing of said written statement. This means that initial stand of the insurance company was that at least till filing of the said written statement, which obviously has to be after 15.12.2014 opposite party had not received the intimation of theft of JCB from the complainant. This stand of the insurance company is belied by the report of the investigator M/s Delta Detectives, copy of which is annexure P-8 to the revision petition. Perusal of this report would show that investigation pertaining to the theft of JCB was entrusted by the insurance company on 30.10.2015. If this is the case, it is obvious that intimation pertaining to theft of JCB must have been received by the insurance company prior to 03.10.2015, otherwise there was no occasion for entrusting investigation pertaining to the theft of JCB to the investigator M/s Delta Detectives. Thus, it is clear that the opposite party / insurance company has taken a false stand regarding the failure of the respondent / complainant to give immediate intimation in writing of theft of JCB. The complainant in his affidavit of evidence has stated that intimation of theft was given to the opposite party on 1.5.2015. Opposite party has opted not to cross-examine him. Therefore, I find no reason to suspect unrebutted version of the complainant. Because the complainant has not been able to provide documentary proof of giving intimation in writing to the opposite party, his version given on affidavit cannot be rejected, particularly when the opposite party has been clearly shifting stand.
In view of the discussion above, I am not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner that the respondent/complainant failed to give immediate intimation in writing of the theft of JCB in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance contract. Thus, in my view the repudiation of the insurance claim is not justified. In view of the reasons given above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned impugned order. Revision petition stands dismissed. (Paras 9 and 10)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Haryana dated 3.5.2017 in FA/1015/2016 vide which the State Commission allowed the consumer complaint filed by the respondent and directed as under: -
“Admittedly, the IDV of the JCB machine was assessed at Rs.17.00 lacs when the insurance policy was provide. The relief granted to the complainant by the District Forum as mentioned in earlier part of this order, is valid and justified. Resultantly, the finding of the learned District Forum stands affirmed. The order dated 14th September, 2016 passed by the District Forum stands affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.”
2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent Vijay Kumar insured his JCB registration No.HR-63B-1231 with the petitioner/insurance company for the IDV Rs.17 lakhs. The insurance policy was valid from 21st March, 2014 to 20th March, 2015. The JCB was stolen on the night intervening 29/30 April, 2014. FIR was lodged against the unknown persons at P.S. Jhajjar under Section 379 IPC being FIR No.297 dated 30.4.2014. According to the complainant, intimation in writing about the theft of JCB alongwith copy of FIR was given to the petitioner/insurance company on 1.5.2014. Insurance claim, however, was not settled. The respondent, therefore, filed a consumer complaint CC/219/2014 in District Forum, Jhajjar. The said complaint was resisted by the insurance company and was disposed of by the District Forum directing that the complainant would file his claim with the insurance company with relevant documents and the insurance company shall settle the claim of the respondent complainant after proper investigation within 45 days.
3. Thereafter, fresh claim was filed by the respondent/complainant which was repudiated on two counts, namely, that the respondent had failed to take proper precautions against the theft of JCB and on the ground that in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract the respondent had failed to give immediate written intimation of theft of the JCB. Being aggrieved of repudiation of the insurance claim the respondent filed fresh complaint No.44/2016 in the District Forum, Jhajjar detailing the above-noted facts.
4. The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing written statement and justified the repudiation of insurance claim. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/insurance company to pay to the respondent total IDV of the JCB Rs.17 lakh with 9% interest thereon w.e.f. 2.11.2015 till the realization of the entire amount.
5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum the petitioner/insurance company approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission on re-appreciation of evidence did not find merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. This has led to filing of the revision petition by the insurance company.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the State Commission only on one count i.e. the State Commission has failed to appreciate that despite specific condition in the insurance contract the opposite party had failed to give immediate intimation in wright of theft of JCB to the insurance company.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant on the contrary has argued in support of the orders of the Fora below. The sole question which needs consideration in this revision petition is whether or not the complainant has violated the condition of the insurance contract requiring him to give immediate intimation of theft in writing to the insurance company?
8. Stand of the complainant is that intimation in writing was given to the insurance company on 1.5.2014 whereas the stand of the opposite party (petitioner) is that the intimation was given much later after a lapse of almost eighteen months.
9. On perusal of reco
