DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 115/12
Shri Chote Lal
S/o Shri Kabul Singh
H. No. 1153 E, Vill. Bawana
NR Mandir, Delhi – 110 039 ….Complainant
Vs.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Regional Office – II
10th Floor, Scope Minar
Laxmi Nagar District Centre
Delhi – 110 092 ….Opponent
Date of Institution: 20.03.2012
Judgment Reserved for : 29.08.2016
Judgment Passed on : 30.08.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)
JUDGEMENT
The complainant Shri Chote Lal has filed a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), against M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP) for award of the insurance claim amounting Rs. 10,45,600/- with interest @ 24% p.a., Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation, mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant Shri Chote Lal got his truck make LPT 2515-TATA, bearing registration No. HR-69A-8091, engine no. 70H62595014, chassis no. 426031JSZ015479 insured with M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP) vide policy no. 320100/31/08/01/00008815 dated 28.11.2008 for a period from 01.12.2008 to 30.11.2009 for a total value of Rs. 10,45,600/- . On 28.09.2009, the said vehicle was stolen from Murthal (HR), which was informed to police station and a FIR no. 306 was got registered on 04.11.2009. He has further stated that after theft of the said vehicle, he informed to one of the officials of OP company viz. Shri Sunil Dabbas, who was residing near the house of the complainant. After intimation to Shri Sunil Dabbas, surveyor of OP company i.e. Mr. Rajesh Sharma visited the house of the complainant and took all relevant documents. On 17.10.2011, he was shocked to get a letter from OP company in which they have declined his claim by saying that he was late by 41 days to intimate theft of the said vehicle. The complainant replied through his letter of dated 12.11.2011. Thus, the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 10,45,600/- towards insurance claim, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, tension and harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
In the WS, OP has taken various pleas such as the claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated as per terms of the policy, the investigator after making the investigation submitted his report dated 03.09.2011 concluding that loss of the vehicle was fabricated; there was delay of 41 days for reporting the loss of vehicle; no intimation was given to the official of the company viz. Shri Sunil Dabbas etc. etc. Other pleas of the complainant have also been denied.
The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OPs, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.
In support of its case, the complainant has examined himself. He has deposed on affidavit. He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint. He has got exhibited the documents such as insurance policy (Ex. CW1/A), copy of FIR (Ex. CW1/B), copy of untraced report (Ex. CW1/C), rejection letter of insurance claim (Ex. CW1/D), copy of letter of dated 12.11.2011 (Ex. CW1/E), copy of award (Ex. CW1/F), copy of execution petition filed by finance company (Ex. CW1/G), copy of statement of his son and the order of Judicial Magistrate, Murthal, regarding the closure report (Ex. CW1/H) and (Ex. CW1/I).
No evidence has been filed on behalf of OP.
3. We have heard Ld. Counsel for OP only as complainant has not appeared to argue and have perused the material placed on record. It has been argued on behalf of OP that there has been a delay of 41 days in informing the insurance company. He has placed reliance on judgment of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dharamender of Hon’ble National Commission, where it has been laid down that where the delay remains unexplained, the insurance company was within its right to repudiate the claim. In Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Anand Singh, it has been laid down that failure to give intimation of theft in writing immediately to the insurance company goes to the route of the insurance claim.
From these two judgments, it is noticed that law is well-settled that in a case of theft, immediate intimation was to be given to the insurance company. If the same was not given, it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. In the present case, the theft of vehicle No. HR-69A-8091 took place on 28.09.2009 and a FIR was registered on 04.11.2009. The complainant informed to one of the officials of OP viz. Shri Sunil Dabbas, who was working at Azadpur office, near to the house of the complainant. There is nothing on record to show as to when the complainant informed to the insurance company in writing. His version that he informed with regard to theft of the vehicle to one of the officials of the company well not protect his right to claim insurance amount. Admittedly, there has been a delay of about 37 days in getting a FIR registered. From the documents, filed by the complainant, which was sent by the insurance company, it has been stated that the intimation of said theft was given to their operating office on 09.11.2009 i.e. 41 days after alleged theft occurrence. The complainant has not stated in his complaint, as to when he has informed to the insurance company in respect of theft of the said vehicle. When he has not given any exact date, as to when he has informed to the insurance company about the alleged theft and have not dispute the date of 09.11.2009, when he informed to the insurance company, certainly, this date has to be taken as the date as to when the complainant has informed to the insurance company about alleged theft. If this date is taken as the date of information given to the insurance company about the alleged theft, certainly, there has been a delay of 41 days. When there has been a delay of 41 days in informing to the insurance company and a delay of 37 days in getting a FIR registered, the same was in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has failed to inform to the insurance company immediately about the alleged theft. He has failed to do so. When he has failed to do so, he cannot be said to be entitled to any relief claim. The judgement relied upon by Ld. Counsel for OP help them.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant was not entitled to any relief. Hence, his complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
Member Member
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
President
