Delhi

West Delhi

CC/17/502

SHAHNAWAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

24 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

CASE NO. 502/2017

Sh. Shahnawaj,

S/o Sh. Ali Hassan,

R/o E-5/60,DDA  Flat

Nanad Nagari , Delhi-93.                                          …….. Complainant

                       VERSUS

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

22/223, New Moti Nagar,

Near Karampura Bus Terminal ,

New Moti Nagar New Delhi.                                    …..…. Opposite Party

       

 

O R D E R

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. DL5SAS-1077 Apache  Motorcycle 160 which he got insured with OP vide policy no. 87146537 for the period  from 19.03.2016 to 18.03.2017 .  It is further averred that the aforesaid  vehicle was stolen  on 25.12.2016 when the complainant had gone to distribute the marriage cards of his friend at Arnawli Distt. Meerut , UP and that on the way of Jhinjhokar the  complainant stayed for natural call and when he returned after answering  the natural call the vehicle was found stolen. Immediately  he got FIR  lodged  bearing No. 0960/2016  dated 25.12.2016 at Police Station Kankarkhera Meerut UP .  The complainant also intimated the respondent regarding  theft of vehicle .  Since the vehicle was not found complainant  filed claim with OP and provided all the relevant documents.  The complainant  further submitted that unfortunately  one key of the vehicle was left in the vehicle  alongwith other documents  kept in the vehicle . Respondent  rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that   other key  was not supplied to  OP  and intentionally and deliberately  rejected the claim on invalid reasons.  The complainant therefore,  prayed for reimbursement  of IDV  value of vehicle with @ 18% of interest p.a  with compensation towards litgation cost  of Rs. 15,000/-    

                                                          

2.        The  respondent  filed  reply by taking preliminary objection that the complainant  has failed to  intimate  the  occurrence  of theft immediately  and that loss intimated to the respondent  after delay of 11 days of alleged breached  condition number 1 of  policy which reads as  under:-

 “1. Notice shall be given  in writing  to the Company immediately upon the occurrence  of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim  and thereafter  the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the  Company  shall require…..”  

Also that the complainant  failed to provide relevant documents to the respondent for assessment of his claim.  It is further stated that complainant has admittedly left the key in the vehicle which remained unattended thereby committed act of gross negligence in taking care of the vehicle .  In this way the complainant committed breach of policy condition no. 4 which reads as under:-

 

“ The insured shall take all reasonable steps  to safeguard the vehicle  from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company  shall have all times free and full access  to examine  the vehicle  or any part thereof  or any driver or employee of the insured…..”

The complainant  also committed   breach of condition  No. 8  of terms and conditions  of  policy on merits. The OP  however  admitted the issuance of  policy  but denied the other  contents of reply.

3.     The complainant  filed affidavit  of evidence  with documents  Ex. CW-1/1 to Ex. CW-1/5. He also filed  final report marked-C and copy of complaint dated 28.12.2016  marked –D and copy of order   ACJM Meerut UP marked –E. The  OP  on the other hand  filed affidavit  of Sh. Anil Kumar Chaddha  Vice President  Legal.

4.     We have heard complainant  in person  and Counsel for OP.  We hav also perused  the record.

5.     The real controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the repudiation was justified or not.  Needless to say that the repudiation was made by the O.P on the ground that loss of vehicle was reported after a gap of 11 days though the vehicle was stolen on 25.12.2016 and no legitimate explanation has been given for such delay and the insurance company relying on condition No.1 of terms and conditions read with condition No.4 and 8 and  rejected the claim of  the complainant. The contents of complaint would clearly indicate that the vehicle was stolen on 25.12.2016  which was immediately reported  to the police station Kankarkhera Meerut UP  but the complainant did not pin point on  which date the OP was informed  about theft  of the vehicle , however,  OP   in its reply has stated that intimation was received  after delay of 11 days and also complainant  failed to furnish   documents  to the OP .   

6.       Now the question arises as to whether the intimation to O.P after gap of 11 days of the incident is fatal to the claim of the complainant or not.  The answer is in the positive.  There is catena of decisions that in case of theft of vehicle matter should be immediately reported to the local police and also to the insurance company, so that the police and insurance company could make efforts at the earliest to trace out the vehicle.  The word ‘immediately’ as indicated in the terms and conditions of the policy would mean that O.P should inform the insurance company about theft of vehicle within 24 hours of the incident of theft.  Obviously, the insurance company in this case was not informed as per terms and  conditions rather was informed after a delay of 11 days.  The law on this aspect was discussed in case titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jogendra Singh, IV (2014) CPJ 637 (NC), wherein the repudiation of claim of complainant was found justified by the Hon’ble State Commission, where the intimation of theft was given after 12 days from the date of incident.  In case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane, IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC), the commission observed that in case of theft, 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, reported in JT 2004 (8) SC 8, held when the policy provides that in case of theft, the matter should be reported ‘immediately’.  In the context of theft of car, word ‘immediately’ has to be construed strictly to make insurance company liable to pay the compensation.  The Hon’ble National Commission in recent judgement reported in Revision Petition No.991 of 2016 Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. while relying upon Hon’ble Supreme Court authority in case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pravesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No.6739 of 2010, decided on 17.08.2010, ruled that notice in case of theft of vehicle shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss of damage and the delay in informing the insurance company would be fatal. 

In the present case the lapse on the part of complainant by not informing the O.P immediately about theft of vehicle, snatched the right of O.P of getting the vehicle traced out by its investigators.  Also the complainant was negligent and careless by leaving one key in the vehicle itself, providing an opportunity to the miscreant get the vehicle stolen.

6.     Keeping in view of the discussion and circumstance stated above, the repudiation by O.P was justified.  There is no merit in the complaint.  Therefore, complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.  File be consigned to record room.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

  Announced this 24TH day of AUGUST 2017.

 

                            ( K.S. MOHI )                                                    (PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                                 PRESIDENT                                                     MEMBER