Delhi

East Delhi

CC/674/2014

HOSHIYARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARTI AXAGEM - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 674/14

 

Smt. Hosiyari Devi

W/o Late Shri Mahender Singh

Through Mr. Vijay Dabas

S/o Late Shri Mahender Singh

R/o House No. 836, Village Pooth Kalan

P.O. Pooth Khurd, Delhi – 110 039                                          ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Big Jo’s Tower, 2^nd Floor,

A-8, Netaji Subhash Place

Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034                                                  ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 25.07.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 15.01.2018

Judgment Passed on: 22.01.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            The present complaint has been filed by Smt. Hoshiyari Devi through her son Mr. Vijay Dabas against M/s. Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited (OP). 

2.         Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a motorcycle TVS Apache RTR 160, bearing registration no. DL8SBC0989.  She got the vehicle insured by OP vide policy no. FTW/11143608/12/01/D11249, valid for the period from 10.01.2013 to 09.01.2014, and paid a sum of Rs. 1,529.22/- towards premium. 

            It was stated that on 16.08.2013, Mr. Sachin Lakra, friend of son of the complainant riding the said motorcycle, parked the same in front of Bharat Ratna Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Bhawan, D Block, Janak Puri, around       9.00 a.m. and after an interval of about 3 hours, at 12.30 p.m., he did not find the vehicle.  He tried to locate the vehicle but all-in-vain.  Thus, he filed FIR vide no. 339/13 dated 17.08.2013 at 19.05 hours under Section 379 IPC at Hari Nagar Police Station.  He received an untraced report from the Station House Officer of Hari Nagar Police Station on 30.09.2013. 

            It was further stated that from the date of lodging the FIR on 17.08.2013 and receiving the Untraced Report on 30.09.2013, the complainant approached M/s. Rajpoot Motors (the dealer), as the policy had been purchased through them.  The dealer assured the complainant that they would file the claim and also told that average time for filing the claim for a stolen vehicle was six months once the untraced report was filed, but they failed to do so. 

            On 13.02.2014, the complainant filed the claim vide claim                  no. C0504868 with copy of FIR with OP, but he received repudiation letter dated 02.04.2014 stating that the claim was made after a delay of 157 days.  Another ground for rejecting the claim was that the complainant had misplaced the duplicate key of the vehicle after two months of purchasing the vehicle which constituted gross negligence on the part of the complainant.  It was stated that the duplicate key was in fact lost five months prior to the date of theft. 

            Legal notice dated 21.04.2014 was also sent by the complainant which was not replied.  Thus, the complainant has filed his complaint praying for directions to OP to pay an amount of Rs. 66,628/- (total insured value of the vehicle); Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation on account of deficiency in services and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost. 

            The complainant has annexed Authority Letter dated 11.06.2014 (Annex. A), copy of Insurance Policy (Annex. B), copy of FIR dated 17.08.2013 (Annex. C), copy of Untraced Report dated 30.09.2013 (Annex. D), copy of Claim Form dated 13.02.2014 (Annex. E), copy of repudiation letter dated 02.04.2014 (Annex. F) and copy of legal notice dated 21.04.2014 (Annex. G) alongwith complaint. 

3.           OP filed their reply upon service of notice, wherein they took several pleas in their defence such as; this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction; intimation of the theft was given to OP after a delay of 157 days which was in breach of condition no. 1 of policy terms and conditions and even after delay in informing, the complainant and user of bike, Mr. Sachin Lakra did not       co-operate the investigator, refused for spot verification and did not provide examination  hall ticket and college ID for verification.  

            It was also stated that the complainant failed to produce second key of vehicle and violated condition no. 4 of the policy.  Other facts have also been denied.

            OP have annexed copy of letter dated 21.01.2014, written to complainant for requirement of documents (Annex. A), policy condition regarding intimation to insurance company (Annex. B), Investigation report dated 17.02.2014 (Annex. C) and repudiation letter (Annex. D) alongwith written statement. 

4.         In his rejoinder to the WS filed by OP, the complainant has denied the contents of the WS and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.  It was stated that the word “immediately” as mentioned in the insurance policy had not been defined in the terms and conditions since giving notice immediately could vary from facts and circumstances of every case.  No definite time limit could be attached and in the present complaint the police officials were promptly informed. 

5.         The complainant examined Mr. Vijay Dabas, who has deposed on affidavit. He has got exhibited documents such as copy of letter of authorization in favour of Mr. Vijay Dabas (Ex.CW/1), copy of policy (Ex.CW/2), copy of FIR no. 339/13 (Ex.CW/3), copy of untraced report (Ex.CW/4), copy of claim (Ex. CW/5), copy of letter received by the complainant (Ex. CW/6) and copy of legal notice (Ex. CW/7).  

            OP examined Ms. Shivali Sharma who has reproduced their submissions in their WS and has got exhibited copy of letter dated 21.01.0214 (Ex.RW1/A), relevant policy condition (Ex.RW1/B), investigation report alongwith statement of insured and her son Mr. Vijay Dabas (Ex.RW1/C) and repudiation letter (Ex.RW1/D).

6.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated on two grounds.  Firstly, on 157 days delay in intimation to OP.  It has been stated by the complainant that word “immediately” as used in condition no. 1 of terms and conditions has not been defined, thus the intimation on 13.02.2014 could be considered “immediately”.  The word “immediately” defined in Oxford dictionary as “At once, instantly” and the words ‘forthwith’ & ‘immediately’ have the same meaning.  They are stronger than the expression ‘within a reasonable time’ and imply prompt, vigorous action without any delay, and whether that has been such action is a question of fact having regard to the circumstances of the particular case “Cockburn, CJ; in Reg. v. Justices of Berkshire, 4 Q.B. Div. 471” in Black’s Law dictionary thus, a delay of 157 days in intimating the OP cannot be taken as immediately.  Further, the complainant has stated that he had informed the dealer, who assured him of informing the OP, but this statement was neither supported by any document nor reflected in the statements given to the surveyor.  Even, if assuming that the police authority was informed immediately does not absolve complainant from his duty in informing OP immediately. 

            Now, deciding upon the second ground of repudiation, i.e. loss of second key of the insured vehicle, here too the complainant has been negligent in taking proper care of the vehicle, thereby compromising the security/safety of the vehicle.  The complainant has not placed anything on record to prove that he had taken steps to ensure the safety of vehicle.  Further, if we go through Ex.RW1/C, the investigation report, the last user  Shri Sachin Lakra and the son of the complainant did not co-operate with the investigator. 

            Thus, from the above discussion, we hold that it was the complainant who has been in breach of policy terms and conditions.  The delay has not been explained as well as the insured was negligent in taking care of the safety of the insured vehicle.  Thus, OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits, without orders to cost. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to both the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

           

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President