HUKAM SINGH vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

THIS revision is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula dated 16.7.2012 whereby the State Commission accepted the appeal against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Faridabad and dismissed the complaint.

BRIEFLY put, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioners filed a consumer complaint in District Forum, Faridabad claiming that they had purchased a tractor after taking loan from Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Sikrona Branch, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. The tractor was insured with the respondent - opposite party for the period from 16.2.2007 to 15.2.2008. The tractor was stolen on 7th September, 2007 regarding which FIR No.278 dated 8.9.2007 was lodged with the police station Sadar, District Palwal. It is claimed by the petitioners that intimation of theft was also given to the Gramin Bank, Sikrona Branch, Ballabhgarh. The insurance claim submitted by the petitioners was repudiated vide letter dated 30th March, 2009 on the ground that there was a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy inasmuch as that the theft was not intimated to the insurance company immediately but after five months in the month of February, 2008. Claiming this to be deficiency in service the petitioners filed the consumer complaint. Respondent - Opposite Party contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein he justified the repudiation of claim in view of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

DISTRICT Forum, Faridabad on appraisal of pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced allowed the complaint and directed the respondent - opposite party to indemnify the complainants as under: - "Accordingly, OPs are directed to reimburse the complainant with the insured amount of Rs.(sic) on account of (sic) within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this complaint failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. instead of 6%. "

FEELING aggrieved of by the order of the District Forum, respondent - opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Haryana and the State Commission after due notice to the petitioner and hearing the parties accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint with following observations: - "The core question for consideration before us is whether the delay w.e.f. 7.9.2007 till February, 2008 in giving information to the Insurance Company with respect to the theft of insured tractor, is fatal to the claim preferred by the complainant.

During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant -opposite party has argued that as the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy in giving information to the Insurance Company after a gap of more than five months, he is not entitled to claim any compensation. In support of her argument learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards "General Conditions " wherein Claim Procedure has been given as under: - "5. Claim Procedure: - i) The insured shall upon the occurrence of any event giving rise or likely to give rise to a claim under this policy. a) In the event of theft loge forthwith a complaint with the police and take all particulars steps to apprehend the guilty person or persons and to recover the property lost. b) Give immediate notice thereof to the company and shall within fourteen (14) days thereafter furnish to the company at his own expenses detailed particulars of the amount of the loss or damage together with such explanation and evidence to substantiate the claim as the company may reasonable required. "

FURTHER reference has been made to the judgment delivered by the National Commission in case cited as DEVENDRA SINGH versus NEW INDIA ASUSRANCE CO. LTD. & ORS, III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC), wherein there was a delay of one month in giving information to the Insurance Company and therefore repudiation of complainant ''s claim was held justified. The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to DEVENDRA SINGH ''s case (Supra). Undisputedly, in the instant case the intimation to the Insurance Company was given after more than five months. Thus, the complainant deprived the Insurance Company to investigate the matter in a proper manner and there was violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

BY now it is well settled law that the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy have to be construed strictly and if there is any violation of those terms and conditions, the party cannot claim any relief. Reference is made to case law cited as SURAJ MAL RAM NIWAS OIL MILLS (P) LTD. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY & ANR, IV(2010) CPJ 38 (S.C.) whereinit has been held that: - "22. Before embarking on an examination of the correctness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a contract of insurance. It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed, and no exception can be made on the ground of equity. "

"24. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount important, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties. "

The facts and circumstances of the instant case are fully attracted to SurajMal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd case (Supra). In the instant case the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by giving information to the Insurance Company after more than five months from the date of theft of his tractor and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and the order passed by the District Forum cannot be allowed to sustain. In view of our aforesaid discussion, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. "

LEARNED Shri Devendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable as it is based upon incorrect appreciation of law and facts. It is argued that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the tractor was insured through the Bank and intimation of theft was given immediately after noticing the theft to Gramin Bank, Sikrona Branch, Ballabhgarh. Thus, the petitioners cannot be faulted and it cannot be said that they have violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

WE do not find merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioners have not disputed that the intimation of theft of the tractor was given to the insurance company with a delay of more than four months in February, 2008. The intimation given to the financing Bank cannot be a substitute to the intimation required to be given immediately to the insurance company. Purpose of such intimation of theft to the insurance company is to enable the insurance company to take steps to protect their interest by appointing investigators to trace the vehicle. The petitioners obviously have failed to protect the interest of the insured by failing to immediately informing the report of theft in terms of the general condition 5 (i) (b) of the insurance policy referred to in the impugned order. Thus, the State Commission in our considered view has rightly dismissed the complaint relying upon the ratio of the judgment of the National Commission in the matter of DevendraSingh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC) and SurajMal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. IV (2010) CPJ 38 (S.C.). In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to point out any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference of this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

REVISION petition is accordingly dismissed.