Delhi

New Delhi

CC/970/2010

Parvesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

07 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./970/2010                                                                                        Dated:

        In the matter of:

          Sh. Parvesh Kumar,

          S/o Sh. Satish Chander Gupta,

          Rz-59B, Dabri Extension(Main),

          New Delhi-45.                                     

…… Complainant

 

Versus

1.        The Managing Director/Chairman,

Royal Sundram Alliance InsuranceCompany Ltd.,

      Signature Tower, 9^th Floor, Tower-2,

      South City 1, NH 8, Gurgaon-122001.

 

2.         The Managing Director,

M/s Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,

605, Sixth Floor, Ashoka Estate,

      24, Barakhamba Road,

      New Delhi-110001.

                              

……. Opposite parties

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

       

The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a car make Tavera No.DL IYB 2105.   The said vehicle was duly insured with the OP Co. vide its policy bearing No.VPV0017129000100  w.e.f. 20.11.2008 to 19.11.2009 and insurance premium was paid to the OP-2. The said vehicle was financed by ICICI Bank.  On 19.112009, the said  vehicle was parked at Rama Road, Near Guru Teg Bahadur Park, and when he returned back, he did not find his car there.  Immediately, he lodged a Police Report vide D.D. NO.23A dt. 3.4.2009 at P.S. KIRTI Nagar.  The vehicle’s documents like Registration Certificate, Pollution certificate etc. were also inside the case, therefore, a report  regarding theft of the documents was also lodged.  Thereafter, the complainant informed the OP Insurance Co. about the theft and lodged a claim along with all the required documents vide claim No.VV00002097 vide letter dt. 18.5.2009.  The complainant also informed the RTO  and ICICI Bank about the theft of the vehicle vide letter dt.5.6.2009.  Further, the said vehicle could not got traced by the police despite best efforts, and they filed an  untraced Report on 20.5.2009 with Ld. Magistrate.  OP rejected the claim of the complainant vide letter dt. 3.4.2010 on flimsy ground i.e. intimation of theft to the police was given late by 17 days and the OP Co. by 38 days.  After receiving the rejection letter, complainant sent a legal notice dt. 5.5.2010 but  OP failed to pay the insurance amount of the vehicle, hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OPs.  OPs have filed its Written Statement jointly wherein it was admitted by the OPs that the complainant has purchased a policy referred above.  OPs stated that the alleged vehicle was got stolen on 3.4.2009  and intimation of theft was given to OP Co. on 12.5.2009 i.e. after about 38 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. The information of the theft was given to P.S. Kirti Nagar  on 20.4.2009 i.e. after the delay of 17 days.  It is further contended that  on the basis of violation of Condition No.1 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 3.4.2009,  FIR  was lodged with the P.S. Kirti Nagar 20.4.2009, an intimation of theft was given to OP Insurance Co. on 12.05.2009 i.e. after about 38 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 on behalf of Ld. Counsel for OP that  after scrutinizing the documents and in the light of the clause No.1  of policy terms and conditions, OP Insurance Co. had rightly repudiated the claim of the complaint vide its letter dated 3.4.2010 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.   

6.     It is admitted on behalf of complainant that the intimation of theft was given to Insurance Co. on 12.5.2009.  It is further argued that OP Insurance Co. has arbitrarily rejected his claim on false and frivolous ground, of delay in intimation and he further  prayed for the relief claim.

7.     The delay in providing information of theft/damage 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 3.4.2009,  FIR  was lodged with the P.S. Kirti Nagar  on 20.4.2009, an intimation of theft was given to OP Insurance Co. on 12.5.2009 i.e. after about 38 days 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.

 

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 and caused delay of 38 days in reporting the incident of theft of the vehicle to the insurer.  The rejection of the claim by the OPs 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 07/01/2020.

 

 

              (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                         PRESIDENT

 

                               (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

                                    MEMBER                                                                MEMBER