Delhi

New Delhi

CC/819/2014

Chander Prakash - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Dec 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC/819/2014                                                                                                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Chander Prakash,

S/o Sh. Dayal Dass,

R/o H.No.RZ-106, West Sagarpur Nangal,

Roya South West, Delhi-46.

        ……..Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s Liberty Videocon General Ins. Co. Ltd.,

          Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

         10^th Floor, Tower-A Peninsula Business Park,

        Ganpath Rao Kadam Marg Lower Parel,

        Mumbai, Maharashtra-400013.

 

2. M/s Liberty Videocon General Ins. Co. Ltd.,

           Through its  Director,

1^st Floor, Rear Portion Alps Building,

56, Janpath, Central, New Delhi-110001.

 

Opposite parties

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

 The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Maruti Swift Dezire VDI car vide registration No. DL 6CL 3175  and insured with OP-2 vide Cover Note No.20000124765  w.e.f. 15.6.2014  to 14.6.2015.  On 6.7.2014 at about 12.30 AM, the  complainant parked his vehicle opposite to the CA Block, with the wall of Rajkiya Sarvodya School and in morning at about 7.00 A.M., he found that his vehicle was not parked therein.  The complainant searched his car but he could not trace out the same and he made a complaint to the concerned P.S. Hari Nagar and accordingly an FIR bearing No.3710/2014 was lodged u/s 379 of IPC on 6.7.2014.  OP-2 was informed about the theft of vehicle and the complainant lodged a claim along with all the required documents with OP-2.   The OP-2 vide letter dt. 11.9.2014 denied the claim of the complainant on two reasons (1) intimation  to the Co. about the theft after the lapse of 20 days (2) the complainant had left one set of key inside the car.  The complainant requested several time to the OP to re-consider his claim but all in vain, hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by both the OPs jointly. In its written statement,   OPs have not disputed that complainant had taken policy referred above along with terms and condition of the policy.   OPs have stated that the alleged vehicle was got stolen on 6.7.2014 and intimation of theft was given to OPs Co. on 26.07.2014 i.e. after about 20 days of theft which is the clear violation of condition No.1 of the policy terms and conditions according to which the insured has to inform the Insurance Co. about the loss/theft immediately after the incidence.  It is further stated that the complainant left the ignition key in the vehicle; the insured has breached conditions No.4 of the contract of insurance.  The complainant failed to take reasonable care and have thus committed a breach of condition No.4 of the policy terms and conditions also.  It is further contended that  on the basis of violation of Condition No.1 and 4 of the policy mentioned in the insurance policy, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated.

3.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

4.     We have heard argument advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.     It is argued on behalf of OP that the alleged vehicle was got stolen on 6.7.2014 and intimation of theft was given to OPs Co. on 26.07.2014 i.e. after about 20 days of theft which is the clear violation of condition No.1 of the policy terms and conditions according to which the insured has to inform the Insurance Co. about the loss/theft immediately after the incidence. It  is further argued that   the complainant had left one set of key inside the car; which is clear  breach of conditions No.4 of the contract of insurance.  The complainant failed to take reasonable care and have thus committed a breach of condition No.4 of the policy terms and conditions also. It is further argued that  after scrutinizing the documents and in the light of the clause No.1 and clause No.4 of policy terms and conditions, OPs Insurance Co. had rightly repudiated the claim of the complaint.   

6.     It is admitted on behalf of complainant that the intimation of theft was given to Insurance Co. on 26.7.2014.  It is further argued that OP Insurance Co. has arbitrarily ignored him several times and finally  repudiated his claim vide letter dt. 11.9.2014 on false and frivolous ground, he further  prayed for the relief claim.

7.     The delay in providing information of theft to the vehicle to the insurance company has been examined by various higher authorities.

 

8.     The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi discussed the matter of delay in lodging the FIR of the theft of the vehicle and also the delay in reporting such theft to the insurance company in the case reported as III (2003) CPJ 77; Devender Singh Vs.  National Insurance Company   Ltd. & Others.  The matter was again examined by the Hon’ble National Commission in its order, dated 09.12.2009, passed in FA No.231/05; New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Trilochan Jane.  In both the cases, the incident of theft of the vehicle was intimated to the insurance company after some period.  In FA No.231/05, the Hon’ble Commission has held that information of loss of the vehicle should be intimated to the insurance company immediately.  The word  ‘immediately’ in the context of reporting the theft of the vehicle to the police, has been held to be 24 hours and in  context of information to the insurance company, it should not be more than one or two days,.  It is so because; the insurer is to verify as to whether any theft of the vehicle had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced out.  If it is not done so then it amounts violation of the term and condition of the policy.

 

9.     In the present case, the vehicle was got stolen on  6.7.2014,  FIR  was lodged with the P.S. Hari Nagar  on the same day,  an intimation of theft was given to OP Insurance Co. on 26.7.2014 i.e. after about 20 days of theft which is the clear violation of condition No.1 of the policy terms and conditions and the complainant had left one set of key inside the car; which is clear  breached of conditions No.4 of the contract of insurance.   It cannot be termed as a reasonable period.  The insurance company has been deprived off to make efforts to trace out the insured vehicle.

 

10.    Considering the law as laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, we find that the complainant did not act as per term and condition of the policy, causing  delay of 20 days in reporting the incident of theft of the vehicle to the insurer and further he had left one set of key inside the car .  The rejection of the claim by the OPs on the above ground is justified, we find no merits in this complaint same is hereby dismissed.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.  The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.  File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on  16/12/2019. 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

            (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

                    MEMBER                                                                MEMBER