Complainant Sarabjit Kumar through the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter for short the Act) has prayed for the issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties namely 1) The Registered Office, Mumbai of the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter for short the OP1) The Pathankot Branch Office of the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (for short the OP2) to settle and pay his insurance claim and any other relief to which he may be found entitled to, all in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a new motorcycle Hero Honda CBZ from its dealer M/s.Duggal Automobile at Gurdaspur and got the motorcycle insured from the opposite parties on 18.2.2011 vide insurance cover note No.300512845267/1001011000 for the period from 18.02.2011 to 17.02.2012. He got his motorcycle registered with DTO Gurdaspur vide registration No.PB-06M-4700. However, the insured motorcycle was stolen while parked near Govt. College Gurdaspur at about 8.30 pm on 3.11.2011. The related FIR No.103 of 7.6.2011 was duly registered with the Police Station, Gurdaspur.  The police conducted the investigation but could not trace the theft motorcycle and issued the untraced report dated 6.3.2012 in this respect. He submitted the untraced report with the opposite parties and completed all the formalities required by the opposite parties vide their letter bearing Ref. No.MOT 02341453/1 dated 24.02.2012, thereafter, he has visited the opposite party no.2 at Pathankot time and again and the officials of the opposite parties are putting off the matter on one or the  other pretext.  The opposite parties repudiated his claim as NO CLAIM vide letter dated 6 August 2012. He has also served a legal notice dated 14.1.2014 to the opposite parties for his lawful claim but he did not receive any reply. He claims Rs.57,946/- the insured value of the motorcycle. He has also pleaded that opposite parties are legally bound to settle and pay the claim to him, who has suffered mental agony and harassment. Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. He preferred to file the present complaint with the desired relief prayed herein above.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint reply through their counsel taking the preliminary objections that no cause of action has ever arisen in the complainant’s favour and complaint of the complainant is not legally maintainable; there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. The claim of the claimant has been repudiated due to the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. The insurance is a contract between the parties and both the parties bind by the terms and conditions of the policy. The claim has been repudiated vide letter dated 6.8.2012 on the ground of delay intimation as the alleged date of loss is 3 November, 2011 and the intimation to the police has been given on 10 December, 2011, whereas intimation to the company has also given after delay of 67 days from the date of loss. There has been a delay in intimation of 37 days to the police and 67 days to the Insurance Company, due to which the insurance company lost its right to early investigate the matter and as per terms and conditions of the policy, the intimation to be given immediately.   Number of judgments has been quoted in this regard. On merits, the opposite party has again repeated the above pleadings and all other contents of the complaint have been duly denied. Finally, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence.

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Meenu Sharma authorized signatory Ex.OP1, alongwith other document Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP10 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.       We find that there has been an admitted delay on the part of the complainant in reporting the theft to the police authorities with a delay of 37 days and to the opposite parties by 67 days and that was fatel to the recovery of the stolen vehicle and deprived the opposite parties to exercise their efforts and influence in locating/recovering the stolen vehicle.  It was held by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as ‘New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Trilochan Jane’  reported in IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC),   wherein it was held that “in the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the Police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the Police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the Policy as it deprives the insures of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle.” We are further strengthened in our above contention by the verdict of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission, New Delhi in revision petition No.2329 of 20111 titled as ‘Om Prakash Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. III (2012) CPJ 59 NC’  wherein it was held that “this Commission has been of the consistent view that even delay of few days in not intimating the Insurance Company about the incident of theft is fatal and the insured loses its right to be indemnified when he himself is not vigilant about his rights and his obligations in regard to the compliance of the terms and conditions of the Policy”.

8.       In the light of the above, we dismiss the present complaint with no order as to its costs.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.             

   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                       President     

ANNOUNCED:                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

March 16, 2015.                                               Member.                                 

*MK*