Back
CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Raj Shekhar Attri, President, Padma Pandey, Member and Rajesh K. Arya, Member
(Video Conferencing)
Smt. Reeta Devi and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited and Anr. – Respondents
Appeal No.156 of 2019
Decided on 10.7.2021
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41) – First Appeal - Appellants got their car insured from Respondent Insurance Co. – Car was stolen and Appellant filed claim for insurance – Insurance Co./Respondents repudiated the claim – Appellant asked for requisite formalities and submitted documents and even sent legal notice – Upon receiving no response, Appellant filed complaint before Distt. Commission – Distt. Commission rejected the claim – Appeal filed before State Commission – State Commission found that ample reasons for delay in filing FIR and insurance claim provided - All paperwork provided to the insurance company – Mere delay cannot be a reason for not providing claim as per Apex Court decision – Distt. Commission decision dismissed – Non-Standard claim of 75% of insured value awarded along with 9% interest and
Rs. 15,000/- towards damages and costs. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 & 12)
Result: Appeal upheld, claim awarded with interest, damages and costs.
JUDGMENT
Rajesh K. Arya, Member.—This appeal has been filed by the complainants (appellants herein) against order dated 23.04.2019 vide which, their consumer complaint bearing No.402 of 2017 has been dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (Now District Commission-I) (in short the District Commission).
Facts of the case
2. Before the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, it was the case of the complainants that predecessor in interest of the complainants, namely, Late Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh, husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 to 4, was doing his business as property dealer in District Ghaziabad alongwith one Shri Veer Pal Singh Tomar. He had purchased a Scorpio for Rs.8,39,000/- from Chandgothia Motors Private Limited vide invoice dated 8.1.2007 under hypothecation with HDFC Bank Ltd. The said vehicle was got registered against registration No.HR01-V-4143 and was also duly insured with the opposite parties for Rs.7,87,000/-. On 4.6.2008, during the validity of the insurance policy a gentleman claiming himself to be engineer of National Highway Authority approached Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh for the purchase of some land and agreed to purchase land measuring 10 bighas. The said gentleman made an excuse that he would bring his CEO and token money from Agra and requested Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh to send his driver with him alongwith the vehicle. His request was acceded to and the driver of Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh alongwith the vehicle was deputed and they stayed in a Hotel of UP Tourism in Agra. The driver was administered some intoxicant in his meal and when he got up on 6.6.2008, vehicle as well as the gentleman was missing. The vehicle had been stolen and FIR No.375 dated 9.6.2008 was lodged at P.S. Hari Parwat (Agra) which was later on ordered to be kept as untraced. Sh. Kanwar Pal Singh submitted claim with the opposite parties and on being objected, the loan amount taken to borrow vehicle from HDFC Bank was also discharged. However, claim submitted was repudiated. Hence, a complaint was filed before District Commission.
Contentions of Opposite Parties
3. On the other hand, the complaint was contested by the opposite parties by stating that terms and conditions of the insurance policy were not adhered to by the complainants and the matter was reported late to the insurer. It was further stated that there was no substance in the claim preferred, therefore, it was rightly repudiated.
4. The parties led evidence, in support of their cases, before the District Commission.
District Commission Decision
5. As already stated above, the District Commission after hearing the argument of the Counsel for the parties and going through the record, dismissed the complaint of the complainants.
State Commission Decision
6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record, including the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellants.
7. It may be stated here that the complaint of the complainants has been dismissed by the District Commission on the ground that the theft took place on 5.6.2008 and there was a delay of 3 days in reporting the matter to the police at Agra, which was done on 8.6.2008 and further that the claim was submitted to the opposite parties belated by five days and further the complainant’s predecessor in interest failed to link subsequent owner Sh. Veerpal Singh Tomar who had lodged the report. The District Commission held that all these facts show violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. While dismissing the complaint, the District Commission placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi passed in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Jai Prakash, Revision Petition No.2479 of 2015 decided on 11.1.2016.
8. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the facts on record and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
