Haryana

StateCommission

A/29/2015

JAH MOHAMMAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHISH GUPTA

16 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.29 of 2015

Date of Institution: 12.01.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 16.03.2016

 

 

Jan Mohammad S/o Sh.Hamla, R/o Village Aligarh (Gundwas) Tehsil & Distt. Palwal.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

The General Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ICICI Lombard House, 414 Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinaya Temple Prabha Devi, Mumbai-4000625.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.N.K.Setia, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

As per  complainant his vehicle  bearing registration No. HR 73 2202 was insured with the opposite party (O.P.) for the period  27.08.2011 to 26.08.2012 and insured value was Rs.17,10,000/-.  Unfortunately, vehicle was stolen by some unknown person on 30.11.2011. FIR No.504 dated 27.12.2011 was registered at P.S.Sadar, Palwal. He lodged the theft claim with the O.P., but, was repudiated on ground of delayed intimation as well as delay in lodging FIR.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that there was inordinate delay of 29 days in intimating police authorities.  Intimation was received by it on 30.12.2011, whereas incident took place on 01.12.2011.  His claim was rightly repudiated on the ground that he intimated insurance company as well as police very late.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated  10.12.2014.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

 

6.      Learned counsel  for the complainant vehemently argued that just after theft complainant informed the police about the incident on 30.11.2011.  The police did not register the case on the ground that they were trying to trace the vehicle and ultimately they registered FIR on 27.12.2011, copy of which is Ex.C-2.  Information was also given to insurance company.  It is well settled that claim cannot be repudiated on the ground of delay in information to insurance company and it has to be settled on non-standard basis.  In support of his arguments, he placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal 2013 (3) CPR (SC) 644, opinion of our Hon’ble High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hans Raj and another, 2014 (3) PLR 403, opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chandra Chadha, 2009 (1) CLT 552,  opinion of our State Commission in appeal No.537 of 2015 and 612 of 2015 titled as Jaina Construction company Vs. Oriental Insurance Company decided on 16.12.2015 and opinion of this Commission in first appeal No.1209 of 2014 titled as Satish  Vs. Reliance General Ins. Company decided on 12.05.2015. 

7.      This argument is of no avail.  Complainant has miserably failed to prove that he informed police just after the incident.  On the basis of application Ex.C-1, it cannot be presumed that same was moved before the police on the date of occurrence, because the FIR Ex.C-2 was registered on the basis of this application, whereupon FIR number etc. is also mentioned.  In this way, it is clear that there is inordinate delay of 27 days in informing police about this incident.  He informed insurance company about this incident on 30.12.2011 which is clear from the perusal of claim form Ex. C-12.  In this way, there is delay of 29 days in giving intimation to the insurance company.  When there is such long delay, insured cannot ask for compensation on non-standard basis and his claim is to be rejected as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition No.2479 of 2015 titled as Reliance General Insurance co. Ltd. Vs. Jai Prakash decided on 11.01.2016. The relevant para of the said judgement is reproduced as under:-

“For the reasons stated hereinabove, we have no hesitation in holding that the insured was under a contractual obligation to intimate the theft of the vehicle to the insurer immediately after the said theft came to his knowledge and mere intimating the police or lodging an FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Since admittedly, there was substantial delay in intimating the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company in both these cases, the insurer was entitled to repudiate the claim on account of the aforesaid default on the part of the insured.  Consequently, revision petition no.2479 of 2015, filed by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. is allowed and the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant Jai Parkash is hereby dismissed.  Revision petition No.1068 of 2015 filed by Shri Gurnam Singh against the New India Assurance company Ltd. is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.”      

8.      The complainant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws because they are based on altogether different facts.  Opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh case (supra), was set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal No.6739 of 2010 decided on 17.08.2010.  In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal case (supra) question of use of vehicle was involved and not the information given to insurance company.  In Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. Vs. Hansraj and another’s case (supra) the police was informed after six days of theft, in Jaina Construction Vs. Oreintal Insurance Company Limited case law (supra) theft took place during the intervening night of 4/5 November and FIR was lodged on 05.11.2004. In   Satish Vs. Reliance General Insurance case (supra) theft took place during the intervening night of 28/29.03.2010 and police was informed on 30.03.2010, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesdh Chandra Chadha’s case (supra) car was stolen on 18-20^th January, 1956 from the outside the house of the respondent and FIR was lodged on 20.01.1995, whereas in the present case the information was given after 27 days.  Learned District Forum has taken into consideration each and every aspect and rightly dismissed the complaint. The findings of learned District forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

March 16th, 2016        Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.