O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The present complainant has been filed by the complaint against O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a motor bike make Pulsar 150CC for a sum of Rs.75,900/- from Fair Deal Bajaj Daryaganj, Delhi. The vehicle was got insured from the O.P i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for an IDV of Rs.63,916/-. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 06.10.2013 at around 11:30 AM he went to the factory on the bike and parked his bike outside the factory. During the lunch hour when he came out around 01:30 PM he found that his vehicle was not there. It is alleged in the complaint that he went to the P.S. GTB Enclave and told the incident to the Police for lodging an F.I.R. but according to the complainant no F.I.R. was lodged.
2. On 10.10.2013 the complainant made written complaint to the SHO regarding theft of the vehicle on the basis of which F.I.R. No.342 dated 11.10.2013 was registered. The complainant also intimated to the insurance company on 15.10.2013 about the theft of vehicle. He filed a claim with the insurance company which has repudiated his claim. Therefore, he has filed the present complaint before this forum.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the O.P which has filed its written statement. In the written statement the O.P has pleaded that the complaint to the Police was made after 5 days of occurrence of theft as well as the intimation of the alleged theft was given to the insurance company after a lapse of 9 days i.e. on 15.10.2013. The O.P has pleaded that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated due to delay in reporting the matter to the Police as well as the insurance company i.e. O.P. In the written statement O.P has also cited some judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in support of it case.
4. The complainant as well as the O.P have filed the evidence as well as documents in support of their respective cases.
5. It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a Pulsar 150CC bike bearing registration No.DL-75-BS-0129 and the same was insured by the O.P. It is also not in dispute that the same was stolen from the outside the factory where the complainant is employed.
6. The only contention which needs this forum finding is about effect of the delay of 5 days in filing the F.I.R. and also the delay of 9 days in giving intimation to the insurance company.
7. We have carefully gone through the document as well as pleading of the authorities and the relevant case law on the subject.
8. The Hon’ble National Commission vide judgement dated 09.12.2009 while decided the first appeal No.321 of 2005 titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane, held as under:-
“Learned counsel for the O.P, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal reported in (2008) 11 SC 256 contended that in the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane. The said judgment was in a totally different context. In the said case, the plea taken by the insurance company was that the vehicle though insured for personal use was being used as a taxi in violation of the terms of the policy. The plea raised by the insurance company was rejected and it was observed that in the case of theft breach of condition is not germane. In the present case the O.P did not care to inform the insurance company about the theft for a period of 9 days, which could be fatal to the investigation. The delay in lodging the FIR after two days of the coming to know of the theft and 9 days to the insurance company, can be fatal as, in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to kabaddi (scrap dealer).
In our view, the State Commission erred in holding that the O.P/ complainant had reported the theft of the vehicle to the appellant-insurance company within a reasonable time. We are not going into the other question regarding violation of condition No.5 of the insurance policy as we have non-suited the O.P/ complainant on the first ground.”
9. In the present case there is a delay of 5 days in reporting the matter of the theft to the Police and 9 days to the insurance company which in our view is fatal and the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the repudiation of the claim on the grounds on delay to the insurance company as well as to the Police is justified and there is no deficiency in service proved against the O.P. The complaint of the complainant is, therefore, dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 17th day of December, 2015.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
