BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                            Complaint No.:61 of 2013.

                                                            Date of Institution: 23.01.2012.

                                                            Date of Decision:13.05.2016

Dhanpati Devi wife of Shri Dayanand Lamba, resident of near PWD Workshop, Dharambir MLA ke Makan ke Samne Vidhya Devi, Meham Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                                     ….Complainant.

                                  Versus

National Insurance Company through its Branch Office, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                                 …...Opposite Party. 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

                 Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member

Present:- None for the complainant.

     Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                 The case of the complainant in brief, is that she is owner of a Maruti Car, model 2007 vehicle bearing registration No. HR-16G-1899 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party vide policy no. 2542168 which was valid from 25.09.2007 to 24.09.2008. The complainant alleged that on 23/24.09.2008 above said vehicle was stolen and FIR No. 277 dated 31.12.2008 was registered in Civil Line, Bhiwani.  The complainant alleged that after completion of all the formalities she visited the office of the OP many times but opposite party  did not take any heed on the request of the complainant.   The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, she had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such she had to file the present complaint.

2.              On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the vehicle was theft on 24.09.2008 and on that day the insurance of the vehicle was lapsed.  It is submitted that the complainant lodged the FIR after a delay of 3 months and 7 days.  It is submitted that during investigation it was found that the car was not stolen rather it has been taken away by some person.  It is further submitted that the vehicle was financed with Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Limited and there was some litigation between Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Limited and in between complainant.   Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.              In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.              In reply thereto, the opposite parties placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 alongwith supporting affidavit.

5.               In this case none is appearing on behalf of the complainant since 30.10.2015 and the case is being time and again adjourned for arguments.  We have proceed to dispose of this case on merits on the basis of the material available on the file.  We have heard the counsel for the OP and perused the record.

6.              Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the story of the theft of the complainant has been concocted because as per the report of investigators it was found that the car was not stolen rather it has been taken away by some person as there was litigation between the financer of the car and the complainant.  The complainant has lodged  the FIR after the delay of 3 months and 7 days from the alleged date of theft of the car in question on 24.09.2008.  The policy of the insurance was valid from 25.09.2007 to 24.09.2008.  He further submitted that the complaint of the complainant is time barred.  The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 23.01.2012 after about 3 years 4 months from the date of alleged theft.  The complainant vide letter dated 11.05.2009 Annexure R1 was asked to furnish the documents by way of final reminder but the complainant did not furnish any documents. 

7.               In the light of the pleadings of parties and arguments of the counsel for OP, we have examined the relevant material on record. The FIR No. 277 dated 31.12.2008 Annexure C-3, untrace report of order dated 15.12.2010 has been produced by the complainant.  The counsel for the OP has contended that the insurance policy was valid from 25.09.2007 to 24.09.2008 and as per the allegation of the complainant the vehicle in question was stolen on the last day of the validity of the insurance policy but no FIR was lodged or any complaint was made by the complainant on the same day regarding the theft of her vehicle, therefore it creates suspicion on the alleged theft of the vehicle of the complainant.  The complainant also did not inform the OP on 24.09.2008 immediately after the alleged theft of the car.  The complainant after lodging the FIR on 31.12.2008 inform the OP about the theft of the car.

8.              We have carefully perused the pleadings of the complainant.  The complainant has not given any reason for the delay of 3 months and 7 days in lodging the FIR, nowhere she has mentioned when he intimated the company about the alleged theft of the car.  She has merely mentioned in para no. 5 of her complaint that the necessary claim papers were deposited by the complainant with the OP for the payment of the claim.  From the contents of the complaint it cannot be derived that the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Further as per the contention of the complainant the FIR has been lodged after the delay of 3 months 7 days and there is also delay in intimation to the OP regarding the alleged theft of the car which are admitted facts.  Thus, the complainant has committed the breach of conditions of insurance policy.  The complainant was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the theft.  In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in case of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Mahender Jat [2015] CJ 181 (N.C.), the insurance company could not be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the insured despite the fact that she has not complied with the terms of policy.  Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is fails on this count and also dismissed on the ground of limitation.    Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 13.05.2016.                                             (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                President,   

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                      Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Ansuya Bishnoi)           

                          Member.