Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/1329

JAI KUMAR BATRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

/ CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC - Opp.Party(s)

19 Nov 2015

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            FIRST APPEAL NO. 1329/2013

(Arising out of order dated 18.07.2013 passed in C.C. No. 40/2012 by the District Forum, Shahdol)  

 

JAY KUMAR BATRA                                                           …            APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

BRANCH MANAGER (LEGAL)

CHOLAMANDLAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED, INDORE.                                          …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN      :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGRAWAL     :      MEMBER

 

                                                O R D E R

19.11.2015

 

          Shri Ajay Namdeo, learned counsel for the appellant.

          Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

           

As per Shri Subhash Jain : 

                      This is an appeal filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as appellant) against the order dated 18.07.2013 passed in C.C.No. 40/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shahdol (hereinafter referred to as Forum).

2.                     Facts of the case in short are that the Jeep owned by the appellant bearing registration no. MP-18 D-0243 was insured with the respondent for the period 20.11.2008 to 19.11.2009.  In the intervening night of 26^th and 27^th May 2009 said vehicle was stolen when it was parked before the house of the appellant of which FIR was lodged on the very next day but insurance company was informed after 8-10 days. When the claim filed him was repudiated by the respondent insurance company, he filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.9,10,000/-.

3.                     The respondent insurance company resisted the complaint stating that as per terms and conditions of the policy the company is not liable to pay the

-2-

sum insured as theft of the vehicle was committed on 27.05.2009 whereas the information to the insurance company was given on 13.11.2009 which is violation of policy condition.  Therefore the insurance company not committed any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim.

4.                     The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding the respondent insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the appellant as there was violation policy condition.

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.                     On perusal of record we find from the policy that in the policy in Section IV in condition no.1 it has been specifically mentioned that “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.”  Here in the present case it is proved that the vehicle was stolen in the intervening night of 26^th and 27^th May 2009 whereas the insurance company was informed about the theft on 13.11.2009 i.e. after delay of 168 days. The District Forum placing reliance on a decision of the National Commission in Om Prakash Vs National Insurance Company Limited III (2012) CPJ 59 (NC) wherein it has been held that where delayed intimation regarding theft has been given to the insurance company, the repudiation made by the insurance company is just and proper, dismissed the complaint of the appellant.

7.                     The National Commission in a recent decision Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Mahender Jat I (2015) CPJ 74 (NC) has held that “Delay in intimation is a violation of policy conditions.  Complainant is bound to give notice of theft in writing to the insurance company immediately upon occurrence of theft as also to give immediate notice to police and cooperate with the company for securing conviction of offender.  Delay deprives the insurance

-3-

company of its legitimate right to get inquiry conducted into alleged theft of vehicle and make endeavor to recover the same.”

8.                     In view of the above policy condition, the respondent insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant and the District Forum has also not erred in dismissing the complaint.  The order of the District Forum is up to the mark and the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant has no weight or force. 

9.                     We find that the order passed by the District Forum just and proper and the District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint of the appellant.  We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.  The appeal is dismissed as lack of merits. No order as to cost.