DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.54/2012
Unique Tourism Pvt Ltd.
Through Mr. Bhavendra Jha
S/o Sh. B.S Jha
D-129, Krishna Park,
Devli Road, Khanpur,
New Delhi
..Complainant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through It’s Manager
E-13, Main Market,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 07.02.2012
Date of Order : 28.10.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Prabhat Kumar along with Adv. Abhishek Ranjan for
complainant.
Adv. Pramod Kumar Singh for OP.
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Briefly put complainant had taken a Motor Insurance Policy for his vehicle covering risk of theft and damage due to accident from National Insurance Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OP.
2. It is stated that during the currency period of the policy from 29.06.2011 to 28.06.2012 complainant’s vehicle was stolen on 19.10.2011 when it was parked at the house of the driver Mr. Raghuraj. Complainant’s driver upon having knowledge reported the incident to police and an FIR was registered. It is stated the matter was immediately reported to the concerned police station at 100 number but FIR was lodged only on 31.10.2011. Complainant informed OP about the theft of the vehicle and subsequently a surveyor was appointed.
3. It is stated that the surveyor obtained signatures of the complainant and driver on some blank papers while collecting the documents. He assured that complainant’s claim will be settled within one month. However, on 19.01.2012 complainant was informed that OP had repudiated the claim of the complainant. It is stated that despite making numerous visits to OP the repudiation letter was not issued. OP even failed to tell the reason of repudiation keeping the complainant in dark. It is stated that OP has intentionally with malafide intent and ulterior motive not cleared the claim of the complainant.
4. Alleging deficiency of service complainant prays for direction to OP to pay the IDV value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.4,12,410/- along with 18% interest from 19.10.2011 till realization; to pay sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation cost.
5. OP resisted the complaint stating inter alia that under contract of insurance the insured is under obligation to take proper and necessary steps to save or recover the insured property and minimize the loss. Complainant was also under obligation to immediately intimate the loss to the insurer without delay, which would be relevant for the insurer to take immediate action to prevent the fraud, recover the vehicle and further loss. The aforesaid duties of the insured cannot be diluted.
6. In the next stated that complainant’s vehicle was stolen on 19.10.2011 when it was parked in the parking of the house of the driver at Village Harola, Sector-5, NOIDA, UP. The complainant lodged the FIR in the Police Station Gautam Budh Nagar on 31.10.2011 after inordinate delay of 13 days from the date of theft of the said vehicle. Complainant did not care to obtain the untrace report till date.
7. It is stated that complainant has breached the policy condition which cast a duty upon the insured to give immediate intimation in writing to OP however the same was done on 11.01.2012 i.e. after delay of 83 days. Delay in reporting the theft to Police as well as to OP has created suspicion about the theft claim as there is no other witness of the vehicle being stolen.
8. OP in support of his case has relied upon Devender Singh Vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Sony Cheriyan and on National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narayan Dutt by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
9. It is stated that insured has not come before the forum with clean hands therefore deserves no relief. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with heavy cost.
10. Complainant has filed the rejoinder refuting the claim of OP and stating that there was no delay on the part of complainant in intimating to the Police authorities or the Insurance company. It is reiterated that intimation of theft of the insured vehicle was given to the concerned Police Station immediately however Police registered the FIR only on 31.10.2011. It is stated that the Insurance company (OP) was also intimated on the very next day. OP had asked the complainant to come with the copy of FIR to lodge the claim form. Investigating Officer provided the copy of FIR on 06.11.2011 and the complainant immediately thereafter filed the claim on 07.11.2011.
11. Evidence and written submissions are filed on behalf of both the parties. Arguments advanced by the counsels are heard. Material placed before us is perused.
12. Complainant’s case is that he was vigilant enough to intimate the police as well as the Insurance company about the theft of his vehicle. On perusal of the documents it is noted that complainant’s vehicle was stolen on 19.10.2011 and the complainant had given written complaint to SHO, Sector-20 Gautam Budh Nagar on 20.10.2011. Complainant intimated OP on 21.10.2011. Copies of both the letters duly stamped by the Police Station and National Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) are appended at page 10 and 11 with Complainant’s Evidence. It is common knowledge that the day complainant’s vehicle was stolen i.e. on 19.10.2011 the complainant and the driver must have been looking for the vehicle. It is averred in the complaint that a call to 100 number was made regarding the theft however same is not evidenced. Though complainant filed a complaint regarding the theft with the police station on the very next day but the FIR was registered on 31.10.2011. It is not the case that the Police was unaware of the theft of complainant’s vehicle.
13. OP’s claim that the complainant intimated OP on 11.01.2012 has not been substantiated. OP has not filed any proof to show that prior to 11.01.2012 OP had no intimation from the complainant with regard to the theft of his vehicle. OP has neither filed any surveyor report nor repudiation letter providing the reasons for repudiating the claim of the complainant. OP is found deficient on both the accounts.
14. In light of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that OP is deficient in service for wrongly denying the legal claim of the complainant. Hence OP is directed to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.4,12,410/- with interest @4% per annum from the date of intimation i.e. 21.10.2011 within three months from the date of order failing which OP shall pay interest @6% per annum till realization.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
