Delhi

New Delhi

CC/66/2014

Sh. Vinod Joshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. National Assurances Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

 

 

                                        CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                       (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

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

                                                                              NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./66/2014                                          Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Vinod Joshi,

S/o Sh. Ramlal Joshi,

R/o Village Kala Kheda,

P.O. Sarkara Kamal,

District J.P. Nagar, 

Amroha(UP).

                …… Complainant

 

Versus

1. National Insurance  Company Ltd.,

(Through its Manager),

Flat No.101-106, N-1,

BMC House, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

 

2.         The Branch Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd. (Loan Department),

Chadha Complex,

Muradabad(UP)

                ……. Opposite parties

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

       

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant  purchased a car bearing No.UP-23-K-1625 by taking loan from OP-2 and making the repayment of loan amount regularly to OP-2 and the said vehicle was duly insured with OP-1 vide policy bearing No.35101031126131953812 valid  from 29.9.2012 to 28.9.2013.  OP-1 has assessed the value of above said vehicle as Rs.2,63,218/- at the time of Insurance.   On 13.1.2013, the complainant parked his car at Shani Mandir, near IP Depot  and requested the pujari of the mandir to keep watch on the car as he had to go to meet his relatives who are the resident of Sarai Phoose, Delhi.  On the next day early morning  i.e. on 14.1.2013, the complainant had received telephonic message  from the Pujari of the temple  about the theft of the above said car. The complainant immediately rushed to mandir and tried to search of his car with the help of the pujari but they   could not trace out the car,  subsequently,   an FIR bearing No.18/2013 dated 15.1.2013 was lodged u/s 379 of IPC with P.S.  IP Estate, New Delhi.  It is further alleged by the complainant that  despite efforts the alleged vehicle could not be traced out.  It is also stated  that on 19.1.2013 the complainant informed the OP Insurance Co. about the theft through UPC and lodged a claim along with all the required documents.  Despite receiving the intimation of theft, nothing was done by the OPs to settle the claim, as such, the complainant sent a legal notice dt. 30.11.2013  but all in vain, hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by both the OPs.  OP-1 has filed its w.s. wherein it was admitted by OP-1 that the complainant has purchased a policy referred above.  OP-1 stated that the alleged letter dt. 19.1.2013, addressed to the OP Co. and alleged to have been sent through UPC to the OP Co. is a forged and fabricated document, because as per the notification No.58(E) dt. 31.1.2011 of Govt. of India deleting Rule 195 of Indian Post Office Rules 1933 regarding certificate of posting was discontinued immediately, therefore, no UPC was issued by the Post Office after this date.  Hence, the intimation to the OP Co. vide letter dt. 19.1.2013 is false, since the complainant has not informed the OP Co. well within time, whereas, the complainant failed to inform the OP-1 Co. even after one year of the theft in question, hence, the claim is rightly repudiated due to the  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.

3.     OP-2 has stated in its written statement that the vehicle in question was duly hypothecated with it.  It is further submitted that the complaint is without any cause of action qua OP-2  and further stated that he is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,00,299.42 from the complainant against the vehicle loan in question, hence, OP-1 be directed to settle the loan account from the claim amount before disbursing the same to the complainant. 

4.     All the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

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

6.     It is argued on behalf of OP that the alleged vehicle was got stolen on  13.1.2013,  FIR  was lodged with the P.S. IP Estate  on 15.1.2013, an intimation of theft was given to OP Insurance Co. on 30.11.2013 i.e. after about 10 months  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 on behalf of Ld. Counsel for OP that  after scrutinizing the documents and in the light of clause No.1 of policy terms and conditions, OP Insurance Co. had rightly repudiated the claim of the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.   

7.     It is argued  on behalf of complainant that the intimation of theft was given to Insurance Co. on 19.1.2013 by way of UPC.  It is further argued that OP Insurance Co. has arbitrarily repudiated the same on false and frivolous ground, he further  prayed for the relief claim.

8.     Perusal of the copy of notification No.58(E) dt. 31.1.2011 of Govt. of India deleting Rule 195 of Indian Post Office Rules 1933 makes it abundantly clear that the after this notification UPC  services of posting was discontinued, therefore, no UPC was issued by the Post Office after this date.  The complainant has placed on record, the UPC dt. 19.1.2013 regarding the intimation of the theft to the OP.  Interms of the notification referred above, we are of the considered view that the UPC placed on record has no legal sanctity.  Hence, we are of view that the first intimation of theft was given to OP-1 Co. after the delay of approx. 10 months   i.e. on 30.11.2013.

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

 

10.    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.

 

11.    In the present case, the vehicle was got stolen on  13.1.2013,  FIR  was lodged with the P.S. IP Estate  on 19.1.2013, an intimation of theft was given to OP Insurance Co. on 30.11.2013 i.e. after about 10 months of theft which is the clear violation of condition No.1 of the policy terms and conditions.  It cannot be termed as a reasonable period.  The insurance company has been deprived off to make efforts to trace out the insured vehicle.

 

12.    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 and caused delay of 10 months in reporting the incident of theft of the vehicle to the insurer.  The rejection of the claim by the OP-1 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 22/01/2020. 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

 

                  (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

                          MEMBER                                                                MEMBER