BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 128 of 2017
Date of Institution : 8.6.2017.
Date of Decision : 24.1.2018.
Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Bal Ram, resident of VPO Chakkan, Rania, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Sangwan Chowk Sirsa, through its Divisional Manager.
- Sh. Rajesh Kumar BC Incharge, BC Rania, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.P. Toksia, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Aashish Singla, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 given up.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant was registered owner of one vehicle motor cycle make Star City bearing registration No.HR-44G-7260 which was got insured from the opposite parties vide policy No.426020311410001112 for the period with effect from 28.9.2014 to 27.9.2015. That on 2.6.2015, the complainant parked his said motor cycle in front of Narula TVS Goriwala and the same was stolen from that place by unknown person. The complainant got registered an FIR No.201 dated 3.6.2015 under Section 379 IPC in Police Station Sadar Dabwaliand the information regarding this fact was given to the opposite party by the police itself. It is further averred that thereafter complainant applied for theft claim of his above said motor cycle. The enquiry was conducted but even then the motor cycle of the complainant was not found. That the ops with a view to deprive of complainant from his said claim, issued a letter dated 16.10.2015 to the complainant by mentioning the false reason that he had not informed regarding the theft of said motor cycle immediately and informed on 22.6.2016 (actual date is 22.6.2015) i.e. after 20 days. However there is no fault on the part of the complainant in this regard as complainant was told by the police that the said information regarding theft of motor cycle has been supplied by the police to the concerned insurance company. Hence the complainant is legally entitled to get the theft claim immediately but the ops have flatly refused to pay the same to the complainant by making false excuses. That the complainant also served a legal notice dated 15.12.2016 to the ops and thereafter the ops got served a legal notice to the complainant and now the ops have flatly refused to admit the claim of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; that complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct as the alleged theft occurred on 2.6.2015 whereas no immediate steps were taken by the complainant to search his vehicle. Even the matter was reported to the police after 24 hours i.e. on 3.6.2015. This inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police amounts to negligence on the part of complainant to search for his allegedly stolen vehicle. It is further submitted that complainant is not entitled to any claim as he has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is the foremost condition to get a claim that the matter should be reported to the insurance company at the earliest enabling it to do the needful to search the vehicle but in the present case, the insurance company was informed by the complainant as late as on 22.6.2015 i.e. after 20 days of the alleged theft and is not entitled to claim any such amount from insurance company. It is further submitted that answering op asked the complainant time and again to furnish all the documents required to process his claim alongwith the original keys of the motor cycle, driving licence, registration certificate and other documents. Earlier a letter dated 29.9.2015 and a reminder dated 16.10.2015 were sent to the complainant in this regard but he did not bother to furnish all the required documents to the answering op. Finding no other alternative vide letter dated 29.9.2016, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the answering op. It is further submitted that it is wrong to say that the information was given to the answering op by the police rather the matter was reported to the answering op as late as on 22.6.2015 i.e. after 20 days of the alleged theft. This delay in informing the insurance company is unreasonable and is sufficient to repudiate the claim of the complainant. The complainant was duty bound to inform the insurance company immediately after the incidence as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
3. Opposite party no.2 was given up by learned counsel for complainant.
4. The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of order dated 12.12.2015 Ex.C1, copy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.C2. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal, Divisional Manager Ex.RW1/A, copies of letters Ex.R1 to Ex.R3, copy of policy schedule Ex.R4 and copy of claim form Ex.R5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that it is proved fact on record that complainant is the owner of a motor cycle which was insured with the opposite party no.1 insurance company. It is further proved that vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 2.6.2015 by someone and FIR was lodged with the concerned police station. The claim was lodged and requisite documents were submitted to the op no.1 but however op no.1 arbitrarily and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 has strongly contended that no doubt the vehicle of the complainant was insured with op no.1 for the relevant period but however there is delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR and delay of 20 days in lodging the claim with the ops. As such complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by which complainant was under legal obligation to inform the ops immediately after incident of theft and non informing the ops clearly amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and complainant is not entitled for the reimbursement of the loss.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
9. It is undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant is owner of the motor cycle and same was insured with the ops and further more it is proved on record that theft of the motor cycle took place on 2.6.2015 and complainant lodged the FIR with the police on the next day i.e. 3.6.2015. Though, as per allegations of the complainant he informed the ops verbally on the same day but however he lodged the claim on 22.6.2015. He has tried to explain the delay in lodging the claim on the ground that police had assured him that they will inform the insurance company and police had been making best efforts in order to trace out his vehicle and after getting all the requisite documents he lodged the claim with the ops. Though, complainant has tried his level best in order to explain the delay in lodging the claim with the ops but definitely the claim was lodged by complainant after lapse of 20 days of the theft of vehicle. On the other hand, op no.1 has though repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of delayed information supplied to the ops but however from the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the ops could not have repudiated the claim as a whole and ops must have considered the claim of the complainant on non standard basis.
10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to settle and pay the claim of the complainant on non standard basis within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We further direct op no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:24.01.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
