Haryana

Ambala

CC/290/2013

RAJBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSS. - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.S CHUHAN

24 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                        Complaint No.   290 of 2013

                                                        Date of instt:     08.11.2013

                                                        Date of decision:24.05.2017

 

Rajbir Singh aged about 47 years son of Sh. Samey Singh, resident of Village Alawalpur, police Station-Barara, District, Ambala.

                                                                           ...Complainant.

Versus

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, having its’ Office-Above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt, through its’ Authorized Signatory.

 

                                                                         …Opposite party.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

BEFORE:  SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT.  

                SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                   

                   SH. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present:-     Sh. JPS Chauhan, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. M.Bindal, counsel for Ops.

 

 

Order:-

 

                                In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is owner of a Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing Registration NO. HR54-0687 and same was insured with OP for the period from 23.07.2009 to 22.07.2010 and the OP at the time of insurance of this motor cycle assessed its’ value Rs.35,000/- and charged Rs.903/- as premium for comprehensive insurance of this motor cycle. Further submitted that on 07.12.2009, the complainant in the day hours went to the house of Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Samey Singh in Village Mehmudpur in marriage on is aforesaid motor cycle and he parked his motor cycle in the Bara of Nasib Singh son of Sh. Roop Ram and when after taking lunch from tent, he came out and found his motor cycle missing from the place, where he kept parked in the bara of Nasib Sngh. Further submitted that the complainant did his best to trace out the said motor cycle here and there; but it could not be traced and ultimately the complainant got a DDR lodged with the police of police State – Radaur vide FIR No. 189 dated 12.12.2009. Afterwards the police conducted search; but no clue came out and ultimately the police prepared untraced report dated 17.03.2010. Further stated that the complainant then made claim to the OP bearing claim No.31702469 and submitted all the required documents but the OP closed the claim file of the complainant by excusing “NO Claim” vide letter of the OP dated 03.02.2012. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement submitting that as a matter of fact the claim of the complainant was duly entertained in due course and during proceeding it was observed that the complainant had lodged FIR only on 13.12.2009 for the theft of his alleged motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-54-0687 alleged to have taken place on 07.12.009 i.e. after 7 days of the alleged occurrence. Moreover, the complainant intimated the OP about the said loss on 27.01.2010 i.e. after a delay of 50 days against the terms and conditions No.1 of the insurance policy, whereby he was supposed to inform the insurance company and the police immediately upon the occurrence of any loss.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X & C-Y alongwith documents as annexure C-1 to C-16 and close his evidence. On the other hand OP also tendered an affidavit as Annexure RX along with document as Annexure R-1 to R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. In the present case, motor-cycle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party for the period from 23.07.2009 to 22.07.2010 as per Annexure C-4 and the motor-cycle of the complainant in question was stolen on 07.12.2009 but the FIR was registered regarding the theft of vehicle on 13.12.2009 i.e. after an inordinate delay of 6 days as per Annexure C-2 and the theft of           motor-cycle was intimated by the complainant to the opposite party on 27.01.2010 i.e. after an inordinate delay of 50 days as per Annexure R-6. It is the sole fault on the part of the complainant and thus as per terms and conditions of the policy the complainant deserves “NO CLAIM” on his ground. On the above said ground, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hon’ble National Commission has observed in case title Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil, 2015 (3) CLT page 90 (N.C) and another case law titled as H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagchand Saini, 1 (2015) CPJ page 206 (N.C) that delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft would be violation of condition of the policy as it deprives insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to commission of theft and to help in tracing the vehicle. Moreover, in the policy, it has been specifically mentioned that claim for theft of the vehicle not payable if theft not reported to the company within 48 hours of its occurrence. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Om Parkash Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2012 (III) CPJ page 59 has observed that insurance-theft of vehicle-delay in intimation-claim repudiated-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission allowed appeal-Hence revision-terms and conditions of insurance policy are required to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity-Even delay of few days in  not intimating insurance company about incident of theft is fatal-insured loses its right to be indemnified when he himself is not vigilant about his rights and his obligations in regarding to compliance of terms and conditions of policy-impugned order upheld.  The latest judgment delivered by Hon’ble National Commission in case title Reliance General Insurance Co. ltd. Vs. Mukesh, Revision Petition No.3275 of 2015 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has also cited and relied upon various judgment in para No.6, 7, 8 and 9 i.e. New India Assurance Col ltd Vs. Trilochan Jane, first appeal No.321 of 2015 decided on 09.12.2009, Tata Motor Finance Limited Vs. Ramesh Kumar and another, revision petition No.781 of 2014 decided on 27.10.2014, Mohammadali Liyakatali Pathan Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Revision petition No. 3183 of 2011 decided on 12.07.2012 and New India Assurance Co. ltd. Vs. Ram Avtar, first appeal No.141 of 2009, decided on 11.11.2013. The above said judgment case title Reliance General Insurance Co. ltd. Vs. Mukesh, Revision Petition No.3275 of 2015  (supra) is fully applicable in the present case.

8.                In view of the above discussion and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the judgments mentioned (supra), the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced on: 24.05.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

    

                                                          (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                         Member

 

                                                                     (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                        Member