Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/45/2016

Royal Sundrem Alliance Insu. Ltd. Through Its A.S. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ibrahim Khan S/O Banno Khan Mev - Opp.Party(s)

J.K. Agarwal

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 45 /2016

 

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Corporate office at Subramaniam Building 2^nd floor, Cropss No.1 Club House Road, Annasalai, Chennai

Vs.

Ibrahim Khan r/o Siddarth Vihar, 60 ft. Road, Alwar.

 

 

Date of Order 10.3.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Jugal Kishore Agarwal counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

2

 

learned DCF, Alwar dated 6.11.2015 .

 

The contention of the appellant is that respondent is guilty of breach of policy condition. The information of the theft has not been reported immediately and necessary documents have not been furnished. Hence, the claim has rightly been repudiated.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that the court below has rightly allowed the claim and there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment .

 

It is not in dispute that on 3.8.2013 the vehicle was stolen which was found by the respondent complainant on 4.8.2013 and immediately he informed the police by phone call on number 100 and thereafter report was lodged on 12. 8.2013. At the same time on 7.8.2013 the Insurance Company was also informed hence, the information of the theft was immediately reported to the police and there was no breach of policy condition and the court below has rightly held so. Further the

3

 

contention of the appellant is groundless that necessary documents have not been furnished. When the vehicle was in the name of the complainant, there was no necessity for proving his possession or to furnish service bill hence, the court below has rightly held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

 

The respondent has furnished insurance policy, copy of FIR, ID, Service Book etc. which were sufficient to consider the claim in favour of the respondent which has not been done by the appellants and the court below has rightly allowed the claim. There is no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm