Haryana

StateCommission

A/1050/2016

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAL CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

01 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    1050 of 2016

Date of Institution:  04.11.2016

Date of Decision:    01.12.2016

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur-302022 (Rajasthan) through Legal Officer, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. E-8, EPIP, RIICO-Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

 

….Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Dal Chand resident of WZE-14, Gali No.24, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi.

….Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      M/s RSIBP, Ltd. through its authorized representative FF Flat No.313(D) Sushant Arcade, Sushant Lok-1, Gurgaon(Haryana)-122002.

                                      ….Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.2

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                         

 

Present:     Mr. V.K. Arya, counsel for the appellant.

 

                            

O R D E R

 

 B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.-opposite party No.1 (for short ‘Insurance Company’) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 21^st June, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) vide which complaint filed by Dal Chand-complainant was allowed and Insurance Company was directed to reimburse the claim of the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, 14^th February, 2012 till its realization besides this, Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony.

2.      Dal Chand-complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the allegation that he owned a vehicle make Sonalika Rhino bearing registration No.HR-55-JT-0330. Its Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) was Rs.5,70,000/-. It was insured with Insurance Company for the period from 18^th February, 2010 to 17^th February, 2011. On 14^th February, 2011 complainant parked his vehicle near IOC Palam Road, Delhi due to some mechanical defect. At about 11:00 A.M. he had gone to bring the Mechanic and when he returned in about one hour and found that vehicle was stolen. He approached the police immediately, however, police registered F.I.R. on 15^th February, 2011. He also informed the Insurance Company and lodged the claim, however, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that there is delay of 35 hours in lodging the F.I.R. and intimating the Insurance Company.

3.      The Opposite Party (Insurance Company) appeared and contested complaint inter alia pleading that complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and not giving intimation to the Insurance Company for one day.

4.      District Forum allowed the complaint with relief as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      Aggrieved of this, Insurance Company has challenged the impugned order.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the file.

7.      It is not disputed that vehicle bearing registration No.HR-55-JT-0330 was insured with Insurance Company for the period from 18^th February, 2010 to 17^th February, 2011 vide insurance policy (Annexure G). The appellant does not dispute that the vehicle was stolen on 14^th February, 2011. The police after investigation submitted untraced report (Annexure F). The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that there is a delay in lodging F.I.R. and intimating the Insurance Company. The complainant has specifically stated that in the complaint that he immediately intimated the police, however, the F.I.R. was lodged by police on 15^th February, 2011. The complainant has further urged that he informed the Insurance Company. The appellant does not dispute having been informed about the theft of vehicle. The only contention raised is that there is delay of 35 hours in informing the Insurance Company. The delay alleged is nor inordinate entitling the Insurance Company to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant. The theft has taken place on 14^th February, 2011 in the afternoon and he informed the Insurance Company on the next day. Certainly, before the insured lodges the claim, he has to search for the nearest branch office of Insurance Company and then lodge the claim. Lodging of claim on the next day cannot be considered as delay in intimation.

8.      As a sequel of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the Insurance Company was not justified in repudiating the claimant’s claim. The impugned order does not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

9.      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.

 

December 01st  2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

 D.R.