BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 142 of 2013
Date of Institution : 13.8.2013
Date of Decision : 5.9.2016
Gian Singh son of Shri Gobind Singh, resident of village Sahuwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited., Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Senior Divisional Manager, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Hero Honda Vertical 101 16 BMC House, Connaught Place, new Delhi- 110001, through its Managing Director.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……….……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that he is the registered owner of a motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-24-N/7440, which was duly insured with opposite party no.1, for the period from 5.4.2011 to 4.4.2012 vide policy No.22510073116200027172. As per insurance policy, the value of the above said motorcycle was assessed as Rs.42,701/-. On 4.4.2012, the motorcycle was stolen. On the same day, complainant informed the op no.1 about the theft and he also moved an application to the Police Post Bus stand, Sirsa and on his complaint, a case under Section 379 IPC was lodged. The complainant submitted his claim before op no.1 alongwith all required documents and officials of op no.1 assured for payment of claim to the complainant. However, the opposite parties have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter No.420700/Theft/12 dated 3.10.2012 on the false ground that complainant informed the ops about theft on 28.5.2012. The complainant has not violated any terms and conditions of the policy and informed the ops on 4.4.2012 itself and also submitted his claim without any delay. The complainant approached to op no.1 and requested to pay the amount of insurance to him but all in vain and op no.1 has refused to admit his claim about one week ago. Hence, this complaint.
2. The opposite parties have filed its reply pleading therein that motorcycle was stolen on 4.4.2012 whereas complainant had reported the matter to the ops on 28.5.2012 i.e. after a gap of 64 days which is direct violation to the terms and conditions of the policy. So the claim has rightly been repudiated vide letter dated 3.10.2012.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his affidavit; copy of bill dated 5.4.2011 regarding purchase of motor cycle Ex.C2, copy of policy schedule Ex.C3, copy of FIR Ex.C4, copy of application dated 21.11.2012 Ex.C5, copy of postal receipt Ex.C6, copy of report regarding VT message Ex.C7, copy of repudiation letter dated 3.10.2012 Ex.C8. Whereas, the opposite parties have tendered affidavit Ex.R1, copy of application dated 21.11.2012 as Ex.R2, copy of repudiation letter Ex.R3, copy of FIR Ex.R4 and copy of policy schedule as Ex.R5.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. There is no dispute before us that complainant was the registered owner of a Motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-24-N-7440, which was duly insured with the insurance company, for the period from 5.4.2011 to 4.4.2012, for insured amount of Rs.42,701/-. It is also so evident through copy of policy schedule Ex.C3. There is also no dispute before us that motorcycle was stolen 4.4.2012 i.e. within insurance period though on the last date of insurance.
6. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd., vide their letter Ex.C8 placed on record by the complainant on the ground that motorcycle was stolen on 4.4.2012 whereas insurance company was informed on 28.5.2012 i.e. after long delay, so the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and claim is not payable. The complainant has failed to prove on record that after the theft, the opposite parties were informed immediately about the theft. There is nothing on record to prove the necessary requirement about intimation of theft to the opposite parties in time and legal right of the opposite parties to investigate the matter has been prejudiced. So, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant does not call for our interference. In this regard, we are also fortified with the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shravan Singh, 2016 CPJ 450 relied upon by learned counsel for opposite parties. No law contrary to it has been relied upon by the learned counsel for complainant.
7. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:5.9.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
