DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 735 of 2010 Date of Institution: 15.09.2010 Date of Decision: 04.12.2015.
Ami Chand S/o Sh. Sardar Singh, R/o VPO Sirmathla, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon.
……Complainant.
Versus
Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd, Sector-16, behind Sagar Cinema Hall, Faridabad through its Divisional/Branch Manager.
..Opposite party
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Ms. Archana Chauhan, Adv for the complainant.
Sh. S.K.Verma, Adv for the opposite party.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he got his motorcycle bearing Regd. No.HR-26-AU-5437 insured with the opposite party vide policy No.2008VO118637 FTW which was valid w.e.f.27.10.2008 to 26.10.2009. During the subsistence of the insurance policy i.e. on 12.07.2009 the above said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person and he reported the matter to the police but the police refused to lodge the FIR and advised the complainant first to search the vehicle and then to visit the police station. The complainant searched the vehicle but failed to trace out the same. Lastly, FIR No.307 dated 26.08.2009 u/s 379 IPC, P.S. Sohna has been registered but the vehicle could not be traced and police filed Untrace Report of the vehicle which was accepted by the Hon’ble Court on 19.02.2010. The complainant submitted the claim with the opposite party but the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 20.07.2010 wrongly and illegally. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. He prayed that the opposite party be directed to reimburse the claim of the complainant with interest. He also claimed compensation of Rs. 30,000/- as cost of litigation Rs.11,000/-. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2 OP in its written reply has alleged that complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy because he has reported the matter to the police for the first time on 26.08.2009 and the opposite party was informed on 21.10.2009 regarding the alleged theft while the alleged theft took place on 12.07.2009 and thus, there was delay of more than 40 days in reporting the matter to the police and of three months in reporting the matter to the opposite party-insurance company and thus, the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 20.07.2010 and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that he got his motorcycle bearing Regd. No.HR-26-AU-5437 insured with the opposite party vide policy No.2008VO118637 FTW which was valid w.e.f.27.10.2008 to 26.10.2009. However, during the subsistence of the insurance policy the vehicle in question was stolen by some unknown persons on 12.07.2009 and in this regard FIR No.307 dated 26.08.2009 u/s 379 IPC, P.S. Sohna has been registered but the vehicle could not be traced and police filed Untrace Report of the vehicle which was accepted by the Hon’ble Court on 19.02.2010. The complainant submitted the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party failed to reimburse the claim and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.
5 However, the contention of the insurance company is that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as he has reported the matter to the police after 40 days of the occurrence and to the insurance company after three months of the loss of the vehicle and thus, the claim of the complainant has not been reimbursed and it was rightly repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 20.07.2010 and thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In support of his contention learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on the cases decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission titled Vikram Singh Vs Reliance General Insurance Company, Revision Petition 3864 of 2012 decided on 02.04.2013, Sagar Kumar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd in Revision Petition No.2341 of 2012 decided on 03.03.2014 and Jay Madhav Jha Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd in Revision Petition No.542 of 2015 decided on 04.08.2015.
6 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that there is no dispute that the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party and during the subsistence of the insurance policy it was stolen on 12.07.2009 regarding which FIR No.307 dated 26.08.2009 u/s 379 IPC, P.S. Sohna has been registered i.e. after more than 40 days of the occurrence and the intimation to the insurance company was given after more than three months of the occurrence. However, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the complainant was required to report the matter to the police as well as insurance company immediately after the occurrence and thus, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance company. However, earlier we have been granting relief on non-standard basis in such cases on the basis of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nitin Khandelwal Vs National Insurance Company Ltd CPJ (2008) and Aamelendu Sahoo Vs OIC Civil Appeal No.2703 of 2010 decided on 25.03.2010 but since in the instant case there is delay of more than 40 days in reporting the matter to the police and three months delay in intimating the opposite party-insurance company about the occurrence of the theft i.e. loss and both the delays have not been explained. In the authority Sagar Kumar Vs United India (supra) the Hon’ble National Commission has considered the law laid down in Nitin Khandelwal Vs National Insurance Company and has dismissed the petition of the consumer on the ground of delay in intimating the loss to the insurance company. Therefore, since there is unexplained delay of more than 40 days in reporting the matter to the police and three months day in intimating the opposite party-insurance company, therefore the claim on the basis of non-standard basis is also not permissible and thus, the complaint stands dismissed. . The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
04.12.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
