CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.62/2019
RAJ KUMAR SAINI
S/o OM PRAKASH SAINI
R/o :260, 3RD FLOOR, HARI NAGAR ASHRAM
NEW DELHI-110014… ..COMPLAINANT
-
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
UNIT NO. 721& 722, 7TH FLOOR, DLF TOWER-B
JASOLA, NEW DELHI-110025
AND ALSO:-
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
UNIT NO. 810-816, 8TH FLOOR,
WORLD TRADE TOWER, PLOT NO. C-001,
SECTOR 16, NOIDA-201301, U.P.
(POLICY NO. 015574660200) ..….RESPONDENT
Date of Institution-22.03.2019
Date of Order-05.09.2022
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA– President
The complainant has prayed for payment of Rs. 2,29,500/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. towards the insured value of lost vehicle, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been claimed for mental harassment and unfair trade practice.
- The complainant had subscribed to an insurance policy issued by OP in respect of his Honda City car which was effective between the period 19.01.2016 to 18.01.2017. It is
stated that the insured car was parked by him outside his house at 8 PM on 30.10.2016 under proper lock and key, however, the complainant in the morning of 31.10.2016 found his car missing. He immediately reported the matter to police. A FIR was registered on 31.10.2016. An untraced report was given by the police on 03.03.2017. Insurance claim of the complainant was rejected vide letter dated 03.04. 2017 by the OP. Complaint to Insurance Ombudsman was also rejected. The Complainant has annexed copy of FIR, untraced report and letter dated 03.04.2017 issued by OP rejecting the claim of the complainant.
- Per contra, OP has stated in its replythat the rejection of the claim is justified on the ground that there was a delay of 62 days in reporting the theft to the OP. It appears from the rejection letter dated 03.04.2017 that the OP was informed about the theft on 31.12.2016. OP relied upon policy conditions 1 and 8 which states notice of any loss or damage shall be given in writing immediately and non-reporting shall constitute breach of terms and conditions of the policy.
- It is further stated that on account of delay in reporting, OP lost the opportunity to appoint an investigator to trace the vehicle and make relevant enquiries. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not given any reason for delayed intimation of theft to OP.
- A rejoinder was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint. The parties have filed affidavit by way of evidence and written submissions.
This Commission has gone through the documents filed by the parties and it is noted that certainty there was delay in informing OP about theft however there was no delay in reporting the matter to Police. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurshinder Singh vs Shriram General Insurance AIR 2020 SC 1395 has categorically held mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.
Considering the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and factual aspects where timely intimation is provided to the police about theft, this Commission is of the view that delay of 62 days in reporting matter to OP cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of the Complainant. The OP is directed to release a sum of Rs. 2,29,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f from 01.01.2017 till realisation along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. This amount is payable by the OP to the complainant within a period of three months from the date of this order failing which this amount will carry an interest @ 5% p.a. till realisation.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
Order be uploaded on the website.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RASHMI BANSAL) (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
