DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.618/10
K. R. Footware Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director
Sh. Rajinder Parsad Gupta
C-337, DSIDC Industrial Area,
Narela, New Delhi-110040 …. Complainant
Versus
Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.
M-10, 1st, 2nd & 3rd Floor
Deepsons Building
South Ext.-II, New Delhi-110049 …. Opposite party
Date of Institution : 29.09.10 Date of Order : 09.11.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant filed through Sh. Rajinder Parsad Gupta, one of the Directors is that the Complainant Company owned a Maruti Swift VDI car having registration No.DL8CR3236 engine No.122428 chassis No. 133265 white colour and insured with the OP w.e.f. 18.05.09 to 17.05.09 vide policy No.2009-VO302612-FPV. The car was provided to Sh. Rajinder Parsad Gupta for official and personal use. The car was stolen in the afternoon of 19.03.10 from infront of plot No.C-361, DSIDC Industrial Area, Narela, New Delhi. Mr. Rajinder Parsad Gupta found that the vehicle was stolen and immediately he called the PCR at about 2 p.m. on 19.03.10 and lodged a complaint with P.S. Narela about the theft. PS Narela, Delhi registered case FIR No.126/2010 dated 02.04.2010. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the OP well within time and lodged the claim after completing the formalities. The OP’s Surveyor after verification submitted the report to the OP on 23.04.10. The Complainant received a letter dated 20.07.2010 from the OP wherein they closed the claim as ‘no claim.’ It is stated that the OP has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim. Hence pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complaint has been filed for the following reliefs:
- Direct the OP to pay to the Complainant the claim amount of Rs.4,76,486/- being the assured value of stolen vehicle,
- Direct the OP to pay to the Complainant interest @ 18% per annum on the claim of Rs.4,76,486/-.
- Direct the OP to pay to the Complainant damages and compensation of Rs. 1 lac.
- Direct the OP to pay to the Complainant Rs.11,000/- as cost.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the FIR for the alleged theft was lodged on 02.04.2010 (after a delay of 14 days) and the intimation to the OP was given on 23.04.10 (after a delay of 35 days). The Complainant also acted negligently by leaving the ignition key of the vehicle in the vehicle and leaving the vehicle unattended for a long duration. Complainant failed to produce/tender both keys of the vehicle and thus violated conditions No.1 & 4 of the policy in question. Hence, the OP cannot be made liable to pay for utter negligence on the part of the Complainant. Therefore, the OP was well within its right to repudiate the claim of the Complainant. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder. It is stated as under:
“…. It is vehemently denied that the complainant left the vehicle unattended. It is submitted that the complainant as per his usual practice left one of the key of the vehicle in dash board, which is duly locked, of the vehicle. However the complainant also locked the car properly with another key of the vehicle so there is no negligence on the part of the complainant. It is vehemently denied that the complainant has violated any condition of the policy….”
Affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Parshad Gupta, Director has been filed in evidence on behalf of the Complainant. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Raj Kishore Mishra, Deputy General Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had insured its car bearing registration No.DL8CR3236 with the OP for the period 18.05.09 to 17.05.09 vide policy No.2009-VO302612-FPV which was being used by Sh. Rajinder Parsad Gupta for his official and personal use. The car was stolen on 19.03.10 from infront of the plot No.C-361, DSIDC Industrial Area, Narela, New Delhi and an FIR bearing No.126/2010 was lodged with P.S. P.S. Narela on 02.04.10. The Complainant submitted its claim with the OP on 23.04.10. The OP vide letter dated 20.07.10 repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that
“as per the investigation report of the reported claim and scrutinizing the claim documents, it is found that the vehicle in question was left unattended and unlocked at the loss location and the key was inside the captioned vehicle at the time of loss which is confirmed in mentioned by you in your written statement. Moreover, the incident of theft took place on 19/03/2010 and the date of FIR for the subsequent vehicle as 02/04/2010 and the insurers were intimated about the loss on 23/04/2010. Hence, there was inordinate delay of 34 days in the claim intimation to the insurers and 13 days in FIR.”
The delay in intimation to the insurance company in violation of condition of the policy has been squarely covered by the national commission in the matter of Kuldeep Singh Vs. IFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2013) CPJ 189 (NC), decided on 18.01.13 and Satish V/s United India Insurance Cl. Ltd. II (2013) CPJ 481 (NC) decided on 16.04.13. In both the judgments, the abnormal delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company and police have been held to be fatal and considered serious violation of the condition of the insurance policy. We do not see any merit in the case and accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 09.11.16.
