Haryana

StateCommission

A/930/2015

CHOLAMANDLAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AJIT - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

07 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       930 of 2015

Date of Institution:     23.10.2015

Date of Decision :      07.11.2016

 

 

 

1.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager.

 

2.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Regional Head Office “Dare House” 2^nd Floor, NSC Bose Road, Chennai through its Director/Manager.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

 

Ajit son of Sh. Gulab Singh, resident of House No.952, Ward No.9, Main Azad Garh Road, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

 

 

 

Argued:                Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for appellants

                             None for the complainant

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Ajit-complainant owned vehicle bearing registration No.HR-12R-6298. It was insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-opposite parties for the period April 28^th, 2011 to April 27^th, 2012. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) was Rs.4,65,500/-. On November 26^th, 2011, the vehicle was stolen. The complainant informed the Police as well as the Insurance Company. The Police of Police Station Sadar, Rohtak registered F.I.R. No.440 on November 27^th, 2011. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated claim. The complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.      The Insurance Company, in its written version, pleaded that the complainant did not intimate the Insurance Company. Since, the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, so his claim was repudiated.

3.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated August 10^th, 2015, allowed complaint directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“9.     In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite parties shall pay the amount of Rs.4,65,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint, that is, September 04^th, 2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Original Registration Certificate, Subrogation Letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of Transferee etc to the opposite parties failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of decision.  Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

 

4.      The only contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the Insurance Company was not informed immediately after the occurrence. 

5.      Indisputably, the vehicle was stolen on November 26^th, 2011 for which F.I.R dated November 27^th, 2011 was lodged with the Police.  The Police has filed Untraced Report (Exhibit C-5). The Insurance Company was also informed. There may be a condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim of the claimant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine. The Insurance Company has not filed any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that on which date the complainant had informed the Insurance Company.  Thus, the ground taken by the Insurance Company that it was not informed immediately, is repelled. 

6.      In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent/complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

Announced 07.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Nawab Singh) President

   UK