Orissa

Jajapur

CC/103/2013

Smt.Saudamini Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Alok Kumar Pane

12 Jan 2015

ORDER

                           IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,

                                                                        2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                        3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                             Dated the 12th day of January 2015.

                                       C.C.Case No.103 of 2013

Smt.Saudamini Nayak   W/O  Bhajendra kumar Nayak

Vill/ P.O . Similia,P.S. Jajpur  Sadar,

 Dist. Jajpur.                                                                               ……………… ……....Complainant .                        

                   (Versus)

New India Assurance Co.Ltd,represented through its  Divisional

Manager,New India Assurance Co.Ltd, At .Main Road,

P.O .Jajpur Road, Dist .jajpur.                                                       …………………………Opp.Party.                                          

For the Complainant:                   Sri A. K. Pani, Advocates.

For the Opp.Party                        Sri A. Ku. Dash, Advocate.                

                                                                       Date of order   12.01.2015         :    .

MISS SMITA  RAY, LADY MEMBER .

                        The petitioner has come with this complaint petition alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the O.P since the O.P. illegally  repudiated of the genuine insurance claim against the theft vehicle bearing No.0R-05-AB-2759 which was purchased by the petitioner.

                        The facts lies in the narrow campus is that the petitioner after purchasing the above vehicle insured the same with O.P company vide policy No.55020031110100008868 for the period from 16.11.11 to 15.11.12 having the assured IDV value Rs.7,71,429/- . During subsistence of the policy the above vehicle became idle and permanently kept at Mantupadia along with other about 10 trucks in village Oleipada nearer to the permanent residence of the petitioner. Lastly on 31.07.12 the complainant went to Bhubaneswar and reside with their husband and due to illness of her husband she could not come to her village to ascertain the condition of the vehicle from 24.09.12 to 17.10.12 . After returning to her village on 17.10.12 petitioner’s  husband  came to know that the above vehicle was removed from its place. Then he asked other truck owners whose vehicle also kept there .  They told that the vehicle was available at the same place up to 29.09.12 evening. But from 30.09.12 morning the truck was not available their. Thereafter inquiry was done by her husband and finally it was ascertained that the truck  has been stolen away by some unknown mistrants. Finding no other way petitioner’s husband  filed a complaint case in the court of S.D.J.M,Jajpur bearing I.C.C Case No.375/12 and after direction of the S.D.J.M, I.I.C, Sadar, Jajpur registered as case No.02 dt.05.01.2013 corresponding G.R. Case No.14/2013 and submitted F.R.T as no clue which is accepted by the S.D.J.M. The petitioner’s husband went to Bhubaneswar on 18.10.12 to report the incident of theft to the agent of O.P and due to Durga Puja vacation the complainant submitted the claim form on 23.10.12  which is  duly received by the O.P. Thereafter the petitioner submitting all relevant documents and other paper along with clarification as required by O.P vide letter no dt.23.10.12 and 01.08.13.  the O.P thereafter without considering the clarification / documents submitted by the petitioner and investigation report mechanically repudiated the genuine claim of the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner finding no other way has come with this complaint petition with the prayer  to direct the O.P to pay the genuine  claim of the complainant Rs.800,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint petition.

                        The O.P. after appearance has filed the written statement denying the allegation of the petitioner . In the written statement the O.P has taken the following pleas:-

1. That admittedly the O.PP. party is the insurer of the said  vehicle of the complainant  bearing policy  No.55020031110100008868.

The policy was valid at the time of incident. That soon after receiving the claim form on 23.10.12 from the complainant the O.P appointed surveyor Mr. Sambunath Pattnaik to investigate into the matter and after receipt the survey report of the surveyor andclarification from the complainant the O.PP. party finally repudiated the claim on 4^th September-2013 . As the clarification made by the complainant is contrary to the term and condition of the policy.

1. That there is absolutely no deficient of service on the part of  O.P party in any manner, rather this O.P. party has taken utmost care and sympathy in settling theclaim. But as this O.P. party is a P.S.U guided by rules and regulations as envisaged by the law. This O.P. party has absolutely no alternative way except repudiation of the claim of the petitioner.
2. That there is no deficient of service on the part of  this O.PP. party for which the case is liable to be dismissed as the repudiation of claim  is according to law as well as as per observation  and decided principles as decided of the Apex court and N.C.D.R.C, the case as made against the O.P. is liable to be dismissed with proper cost to this O.P as provided in the law.

                        In view of the above contradicting views of both the parties we heard the arguments from both sides on the date of hearing . We have also come across with the observation of Hon’ble National Commission stated below:- which clearly go to establish that delay in lodging F.I.R in the police station and information to Insurance Company ( Specially in theft  case ) violates the terms and condition of the policy for which the insured is no way eligible to get the insurance claim.

1. 2012(2)CPR-12 (NC),Rajesh Kumar Vrs.New India Insurance Co.

                        “ Lodging F.I.R in case of theft should be immediate concern for any owner             of vehicle”.

2. 2012(3)CPR-280 (NC),Siraj Khan Vrs.Mahindra Finance.

                        “ Delay in lodging F.I.R and sending intimation about theft to insurer. Repudiation             of claim on this ground would be justified”.

3. 2012(4)CPR-559 (NC) Rahul Tanwar Vrs. Oriental Insurance .

                        “ peril must be immediately reported to police  and Insurance company”.

4. 2013(1)CPR-328 (NC) Mallikarjus Vrs. Oriental Insurance Co.

                        “Complaint can be dismissed on account of delayed information  to Insurance                         Company.”

5. 2013 (1)CPR-574 (NC) Balbir Singh Vrs. New India.

                        “ Occurrence of theft must be immediately reported to police “.

6. 2013(2) CPR-99 (NC)-13 Suresh Kumar Vrs. National Insurance .

                        “ Peril must be reported Insurance company without any delay”.

7. 2013 (2) CPR-517 (NC), Lakhan Pal Vrs. United India Insurance Co.

8. F.A.No.321 of 2005 ,New India Assurance Co.Ltd,Vrs. Trilochan Jane(NC).

                        “ Insurance Company must be immediately informed about alleged theft “.

 

9. 2014(1) CPR-370 (NC)

                        “ time is of essence in matters where theft of the vehicle has taken place “.

10. 2014(1) CPR-427 (NC)

      2014(1) CPR-473 (NC)

      2014(1) CPR-119 (NC)

                        From the observations stated above, we have gone through the record in details and after perusal of the records it is cristal clear that  the complainant is unknown about the exact date and time of the theft of the vehicle and the complainant failed to establish that  under whose custody the vehicle was parked as per clause-3 of policy condition .  The suspected date of theft of vehicle was on 29.09.12. The petitioner has submitted the claim form on 23.10.12 and F.I.R registered on police station on 05.01.13 at the  belated stage i.e after 97 days and insurance company  after 23 days.

                        In the above situation though the petitioner duty is to inform the police and Insurance company within 48 hours as per observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2013(2)CPR-99-para-13(N.C) and F.A. No.321 of 2005 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Vrs. Trilochan Jane(NC) but the petitioner has not done so which violates the term and conditions of policy.

                        Owing to the above narrated circumstances having no alternative way the interest of justice will be best served in case the dispute will be dismissed.

                                                                        O R D E R

                        In the result the dispute is dismissed against the O.P. No cost.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 12th day of January ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.

                                                                                               

 

                                                                                            (Miss Smita Ray)                                                         

 (Shri Biraja Prasad Kar )                                                    Lady  Member.                                                                       

            President.                                             Typed to my dictation & corrected by me

                                                                                    

                                                                                       

 (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                  (Miss Smita Ray)                                                         

       Member.                                                                      Lady Member.