DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM EAST Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 290/2015
Date of Institution - 11/05/2015
Date of Order - 22/07/2016
In matter of
Mr Molchand Sharma, adult
s/o Sh B K Sharma
R/o- A-13, Bloch A
Gazipur Village, Delhi 96…………………………………………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-The Regional Manager
The New India Assurance Co.
DRO II, Scope Minar,
10th Floor, Core I, Laxmi Nagar District Centre,
Delhi 110092…………………………………………………………………………..Respondent
Complainant’s Advocate - Sh AK Jain
Opponent’s Advocate -Rajnesh Kumar
Corum Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member :
Brief Facts of the case
Mr Sumit Sharma s/o Sh Moolchand Sharma, owner of Motor cycle, vide registration no. DL7SBP3774 had parked the vehicle outside of his office at Gaur City, Noida in the morning. When he came in the evening, found his motor cycle missing. After much tracing, he made 100 no. call to police at Noida, UP. The motor cycle was insured from Daryaganj Delhi from OP.
Son of complainant lodged FIR after two days and intimated OP after 09 days. He filed claim before OP after getting NO Trace report from UP Police. The claim was rejected by OP. There after complainant filed this complaint.
After scrutinizing the complaint and documents filed by complainant, notice was served. OP filed their written statement denying all the facts narrated by complainant. OP stated that the motor cycle was lost due to the negligence of son of complainant. Also complainant lodged FIR after two days and intimation was given to the Co. after 09 days. The statement given by the son of complainant to the surveyor was contrary to the terms and condition of the policy.
Complainant filed his rejoinder and evidences on affidavit. OP also filed their evidences on affidavit.
After hearing arguments from both counsels, it is obvious that OP has proved their version by evidences on record, surveyor’s report and citations. OP has filed following citations as
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Vijay Kumar Jain, I (2015) CPJ 387 NC in RP 4632/2013 decided on 09/12/2014, which supports OP’s surveyors report which says that son of complainant had left the key in the vehicle.
ICICI Prudential General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pawan Kumar
III(2014) CPJ162NC in RP 4166 of 2011 decided on 29/05/2015 which delay in intimation by 12 days. Here delay in intimation is 09 days to OP.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Jogendra Singh I IV(2014) CPJ 637 NC in RP 3047/2011 decided on 16/10/2014 which says intimation regarding theft was given after 12 days from date of incident. Violation of terms and condition of policy. Repudiation of claim was justified.
It is clear that in event of loss of goods/vehicle, insured/complainant has to inform the insurer/OP within 48 hours so that OP can find out true facts about the case and cause of loss. In this case, intimation was given after 09 days to the OP for theft of vehicle/motor cycle which supports the citations and claim rejection was justified by OP.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the rejection of claim was justified. Complainant has not been able to establish deficiency of respondent in rejection of claim on concrete evidence. Hence, complaint is dismissed without any order to cost.
The order copy be sent to the parties as per act and file be consigned to the record room
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member (Dr) P N Tiwari Member
Mr Sukhdev Singh President
