Delhi

North East

CC/257/2018

Vidur Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 257/18

In the matter of:

	Shri Vidur Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Das, R/o:- 102, Shivpuri Delhi-110051	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Office at: 9, Raj Block, 1st Floor Naveen Shahdara, Near Gyanand Cinema Shahdara, Delhi-110032	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

18.12.2018 09.06.2022 21.07.2022

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant had purchased Honda Motor Cycle-Honda Activa 4G Bearing Registration No. DL5SBA7540, Engine No. & Chassis No. 225979-226005 on 19.05.2017 for a total sum of Rs. 55,500/-. The said Vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party vide policy Bearing  No. 271702/31/2018/5732 for the period from 21.05.2017 to midnight 20.05.2018. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,789/- to the Opposite Party as premium of the said policy. On 14.04.2018 the said vehicle was stolen. The Complainant immediately made a call at 100 number. The complaint made online complaint at the website of Delhi Police regarding theft of vehicle on the same day LR No. 1074249/2018. Complainant informed the Opposite Party on 20.04.2018 as well as 19.05.2018 in writing regarding the theft of vehicle. Complainant submitted all the requisite documents to Opposite Party for settling the claim.
2. Complainant has prayed for issuing direction to Opposite Party to pay Rs. 48,194 total IDV of vehicle along with @ 18% p.a. He has also claimed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental torture and agony.
3. Complainant has attached copy of policy cover note, Copy of vehicle delivery report, copy of FIR, copy of theft intimation letters dated 20.04.2018 & 19.05.2018, copy of Information Report, copy of letter dated 15.06.2018 received from Shree Narayan Hari Investigation Bureau and copy of un-trace report.

Case of the Opposite Party

4. Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is submitted by the Opposite Party that as per terms and conditions of the policy the complainant was duty bound to intimate about the occurrence immediately to the insured as well as the police, whereas, in the present case a theft claim was lodged with the Opposite Party only on or after 23/24.04.2018 and on 19.05.2018 in writing by the Complainant, and alleged theft occurred on 14.04.2018 at about 02:30 p.m. between 05:00 p.m. The clause no. 1 of the policy terms and conditions as under:

“Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest of fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender”.

 

5. It is submitted by the Opposite Party that an investigator was deputed immediately on 25.04.2018 after Complainant’s information in writing on 24.04.2018. It is alleged that Complainant delayed the matter by non-submission of the requisite information/documents as demanded/required by the investigator.

 

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the assertion made by the opposite party and reiterated his case as mentioned in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. He has also relied upon the documents filed along with the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

8. In order to prove its case Opposite Party filed affidavit of Shri Rajiv Chopra, Sr. Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-14, 80, F.I.E., Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi.

Arguments & Conclusion

9. We have heard the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file. We have also perused the written arguments filed by the parties.
10.  From the pleadings of the party, it is revealed that the following facts are admitted.

1. Scooty Bearing No. DL5SBA7540 of the Complainant was insured by the Opposite Party for a period from 21.05.2017 to 20.05.2018.
2. The said Scooty of the Complainant was stolen on 14.04.2018.
3. At the time of the theft scooty of the Complainant the insurance policy of the scooty was valid.

11.  The claim of the Complainant was repudiated by Opposite Party on the ground that the Complainant did not lodge the complaint immediately with the police and also did not inform the Opposite Party immediately regarding theft of his scooty.
12.  The scooty of the Complainant was found missing on 14.04.2018 at about 5:00 p.m. Then after making some enquiry from the spot including the traffic police, the Complainant made 100 number call at about 6:10 p.m. It is clear that there was no delay in reporting the theft of the scooty. This means that Complainant had immediately informed the police. Thereafter, FIR was registered by the police and investigation was conducted by the police. However, the scooty of the Complainant could not be recovered by the police. The police filed ‘un-trace’ report. This report was accepted by court on 18.07.2018. Therefore, it is clear that scooty of the Complainant was stolen and it could not be recovered by the police.
13.  As per the case of Opposite Party, the Complainant lodged the claim on 23/24.04.2018. The claim of the Complainant was repudiated only on the ground that the Complainant informed the Opposite Party regarding the theft of his scooty after delay. The Complainant has made his claim and informed the Opposite Party on 23/24.04.2018 of the theft. In our considered opinion, there is no delay in lodging the claim of theft/reporting of theft to the Opposite Party. It has been discussed about that Complainant immediately informed the police regarding theft of his scooty.
14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party wrongly repudiated the claim of the Complainant. Therefore, the Opposite Party directed to pay a sum of Rs. 48,194/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand One hundred Ninety Four Only) to the Complainant. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) shall be paid to the Complainant by the Opposite Party as compensation and litigation charges. The Opposite Party shall pay an interest @ 6% p.a. on the total amount of Rs. 63,194/- (Rupees Sixty Three Thousand One Hundred Ninety Four Only) from the date of this order and till its recovery.
15.  Order announced on 21.07.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President