BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 420 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 12.07.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 29.03.2011 |
Mrs. Jasbir Kaur, residing at House No.3396, Sec 32D, Chandigarh. ….…Complainant V E R S U S Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.54-55, Sec 34A, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Party CORAM: SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER Argued by:Sh. Hitender Kansal, Adv. for complainant. Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Adv. for OP PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER Succinctly put, the LML Vespa scooter of the complainant was insured with the OP for the period 13.2.2008 to 12.2.2009. Unfortunately the said scooter was stolen on 26.5.2008 from the parking area of the Sector 34 regarding which FIR No.33 dated 22.6.2008 was lodged by the complainant’s brother and intimation was also given to the insurance agent. The insurance agent directed the complainant to obtain untraceable report which took approximately four months. After taking the report he submitted the same to the insurance agent and waited for the release of the claim amount. As nothing was done till April 2009, the complainant approached the OP and was shocked to know that no claim was ever received by them. Thereafter she sent letter to the OP informing that she had already written about the theft to the OP. In reply to the said letter, the OP sent letter dated 7.4.2009 whereby the genuine claim of the complainant was repudiated. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 2. In their written reply the OP did not dispute the factual matrix of the case. It has been submitted that immediate intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was not given to the OP because as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insured was bound to intimate in writing regarding the theft. It has been averred that even the FIR was lodged with a day of 28 days. It has been denied that the complainant ever approached the office of the OP after the loss and only sent a letter in April 2009 intimating about the theft which was duly replied and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated due to delay of 11 months and 22 days. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 5 It is the admitted case of the complainant that the scooter was stolen on 26.05.2008 and he had informed the police on 22.06.2008 i.e. after 28 days of the occurrence and he had informed the OPs after 11 months and 22 days after the theft of the vehicle which was admitted by the complainant which is clear violation of the condition No.1 of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the relevant part of which reads as under:- “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter, claim write, summons and/or process shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender”. 6. The complainant should have informed the OPs within 24 hours of the theft so that OP may get an opportunity to get the matter investigated by their investigator. The same was not possible at this stage and as such the complainant had herself violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In our view, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | 29th March, 2011 | [Dr. (Mrs) Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | Cm | Member | | Presiding Member |
| | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
