PRESENT
Complainant by Adv. O.D.Goswami.
Complainant by Adv. Bhavana Bhatt present.
ORDER
(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President.
1. The complainant has insured his Vehicle No. MH-04-DD-3277 vide Policy No. VG 00034089000100 for a period between 7-5-2009 to 6-5-2010. The Vehicle Tata LPT 1613 was manufactured in 2004 and was hypothecated with Kotak Mahindra Bank.
2. The said vehicle was stolen during the insurance period i.e. 7-5-2009 to 6-5-2010. The theft was committed on 8-1-2010. The complaint was filed to concerned police station on 8-2-2010. The claim was filed before opponent as per the contract of Insurance. The said claim was rejected.
3. According to complainant the claim was rejected without valid reasons. Whereas opponent alleged that claim was rejected on the ground of in ordinate delay in lodging FIR as per terms of policy with detail reasons. It is argued that belated intimation to the insurer and police authority are serious breaches of Policy as it prevents detection of stolen property.
4. The complainant claimed compensation for loss to the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs ) Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) for mental agony and the sum assured to the amount of Rs. 4,22,000/- (Rs. Four lacs twenty two thousand). The opponent on the other hand prayed for dismissal of complaint being vexations in nature. It is submitted that claim is rejected on merit.
5. We have perused the Insurance Policy, copy of F.I.R. Investigation papers, classification of ‘A’ summary, rejection letter, letters dated 24/8/2010, 24/12/2010, complaint, written statement, affidavit of evidence and written notes of argument filed’ on record by both parties.
6. Admittedly the Vehicle Tata LPT 1613 was insured with opponent and the said vehicle was stolen during insurance period. The record shown that intimation of theft was given after length of time and not immediately from the date of knowledge of theft. The F.I.R. was lodged after a month.
7. The complainant has explained that, after the theft of vehicle he visited police station 4 to 5 times for lodging complaint and he was asked by police that, in case vehicle is found, he would have to make an application in court for return of property. He stated that, he felt it would be tedious job, so he did not lodge the police complaint immediately.
8. We feel that said explanation is reasonable and we accept the same. However, there is a long delay in reporting to Insurance company. The delay in not informing opponent is not satisfactory. Therefore, there is violation of terms of policy, however there is no fundamental breach of terms of policy.
9. The opponent has not proved by evidence that the claim of the complainant is highly suspicious creating reasonable belief that claim is not genuine. The learned Magistrate has granted ‘A’ summary which indicate prima facie that complaint is genuine. The opponent failed to prove that complainant is not a consumer.
10. As per law the opponent is liable to pay the amount to the extent of 75% of Insurance declared value i.e. Rs. 4,22,000/- (Rs. Four lacs twenty two thousand) . Hence opponent is liable to pay Rs. 3,16,500/- (Rs. Three lacs sixteen thousand five hundred) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint.
11. In the result we partly allowed the complaint. The prayer for compensation and cost is not considered as there is breach of policy though not a fundamental breach.
12. Hence we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. RBT Consumer Complaint No. 141/2011 is partly allowed.
2. The HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to pay the
complainant to the extent of 75% of Insurance declared value i.e. Rs.
4,22,000/- (Rs. Four lacs twenty two thousand) . Hence opponent is
directed to pay Rs. 3,16,500/- (Rs. Three lacs sixteen thousand five
hundred) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the
complaint i.e. 14.03.2011 till payment.
3. No order as to cost.
- Copy of this order be sent to the both parties.
