DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.512/2011
Sh. Brij Pal
S/o Sh. Battan Singh
R/o A-215, Sanjay Camp,
Dakshinpuri, New Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
F.A.I. Building, 10, Shaheed J.S. Marg,
Qutub Institutional Area,
New Delhi-110067 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 21.12.11 Date of Order : 04.01.19
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle vide registration No.HR-38N-3659 making Bajaj Auto Ltd. which was insured by the OP on 15.01.07 for total sum insured amount of Rs.1,12,100/- for the period from 15.01.07 to 14.01.08. It is submitted that on 29.09.07 at night the car of the complainant was stolen from Hanuman Mandir at Ram Nagar, Faridabad, Haryana. It is stated that the complainant went to the police station and made dairy entry of the stolen vehicle. When the vehicle was not searched out, a case was registered vide FIR No.428/2007 dated 15.10.07. Complainant made a telephonic call to the OP on phone No.01126296981 and call centre No. 18003453303 but there was no response from the above number. It is stated that on 08.01.18 the complainant filed the written complaint for releasing the amount and office bearer of the OP assured him that he will come for verification about the stolen vehicle in near future. A person from Suraksha Enterprise came to the complainant on 15.07.08 and verified all the things which he had needed and carried all the documents which concerned about the above vehicle and gave his mobile number i.e. 9212519704 for any enquiry and he will inform about the releasing of insured money but no response was received from Suraksha Enterprises. It is submitted that the complainant was pursuing the OP for his claim time to time but the OP always stated that come on next time. When the complainant visited the office of the OP then the OP gave the motor claim form and stated that deposit the same after filling all the particulars. The complainant filled all the particulars and filed the same on 12.09.11. On 17.10.11 the complainant gave an application to the OP for release of his insured amount but till date there is no response or any action from the OP. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.1,12,100/- to the complainant towards insured amount with interest @ 18% p.a.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant.
In the written statement OP has inter-alia stated that the complainant has been highly negligent and lethargic in pursuing the alleged theft of the vehicle. It is evident from the facts that the first information report for the vehicle was lodged after 17 days of the incident and the OP was informed about the incident after more than three months. Because of the huge delay in lodging the FIR the chances of recovery of the vehicle become nil. Had the complainant lodged the report timely or atleast call the PCR on time there was still a remote possibility of the recovery of the vehicle. In such circumstances the OP exonerated from any of its liability under the insurance policy, due to breach of the terms and conditions which mandate that in the event of any theft or damage, the Insurance Company will be informed as soon as possible. The fact is that even after lodging the claim with the OP, for several months i.e. upto July, 2008, the complainant was not traceable as a result of which the investigation cannot be conducted. Therefore, the complainant taken his own sweet time in providing all the documents to the OP. Infact, the investigation in July, 2008 was closed as the complainant did not provide the relevant documents and all his contact addresses were either found to be incorrect or the complainant was not residing there. Thus, the complainant cannot shift the blame of his own delay upon the OP. The complainant was never assured that his claim will be allowed. It is submitted that the complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation as the perusal of the complaint will prove that the cause of action arose w.e.f. July 2008, the complaint was filed in the last quarter of 2011 which is beyond the period of limitation of two years. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
No rejoinder to the written statement of OP has been filed by the complainant
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in the evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Choudhary, Attorney has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the complainant has filed the details of the vehicle as Annexure-1. The copy of the Motor Insurance Vehicle Cover Note dated 15.01.07 has been filed as Annexure-B. The copy of the FIR dated 15.10.07 has been filed as Annexure-C with copy of the final form/report. The complainant sent a letter dated till to the OP as Annexure-D. The copy of letter dated 15.07.08 sent to the complainant by Suraksha Enterprises as Annexure-E. The complainant filed the Motor Claim Form dated 23.09.11 as Annexure-G. The complainant has filed copy of the letter dated 17.10.11 sent to the OP as Annexure-H.
It is evident from the record that the OP issued an insurance policy to the complainant vide cover note No.34084458 dated 15.01.07 for total sum insured of Rs.1,12,000/- and the vehicle was insured for the period from 15.01.07 to 14.01.08. According to the complainant his vehicle was stolen on 29.09.07 and an FIR No. 428 dated 15.10.07 was registered with the P.S. Sector-7, Faridabad.
It is clear from the record that FIR for the vehicle was lodged after 17 days of the incident and the OP was informed about the incident after more than three months. It clear from the letter dated 15.07.08 sent by Suraksha Enterprises (Annexure-E) wherein it was mentioned that “Please note if we do not hear from you within 7/15 days from the receipt of this letter it will be presumed that you are not interested to pursue the claim further and the claim will be recommended by us as NO CLAIM”. The complainant submitted motor claim form (Annexure-G) to the OP only on 23.09.11. It is clear that the complainant has filed the motor claim form to the OP after lapse of more than three years. Therefore, the claim filed before the OP was time barred as the OP has already in their letter dated 15.07.08 mentioned that if the complainant will not submit the documents within 7/15 days it will be presumed that the complainant is not interested to pursue the claim and the claim will be recommended by them as “No Claim”. Complainant has not placed any document on the record to show that he has filed the claim alongwith documents with the OP before 23.09.11. It is evident from the record that the complainant was negligent in submitting the claim with OP and he is not allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and no liability can be fastened upon the OP.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 04.01.19.
