Delhi

East Delhi

CC/490/2016

SATISH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

10 Dec 2018

ORDER

            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.        490/2016

                                                                                                   Date of Institution               19/09/2016

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               10/12/2018        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                       12/12/2018                                                                                    

 

In matter of

Mr  Satish Shekhawat,  adult  

s/o Sh  Babu Lal   

R/o-U-178A, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 ….……………...…………….Complainant

                             

                                      Vs

1-The Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

11^th Floor, North Tower, Scope Minar, Core 2,

Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Delhi 110092 …………..….…………..Opponents

 

Complainant’s  Advocate               Mr Punit Tandon

Opponent’s Advocate                     Mr S K Pandey

 

Quorum      Sh Sukhdev  Singh      President

                     Dr P N Tiwari               Member

                     Mrs Harpreet Kaur     Member                                                                                             

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  - Member

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for the deficiency of OP for not passing his vehicle insurance claim.                                                                                                       

Brief Facts of the case –

Complainant purchased Hero Splendor motor cycle having registered no. DL5SAQ9250 (Ex CW1/1) on 01/01/2016 and the same was insured by OP/NIC from 01/01/2016 to 31/12/2016 vide policy no. 39010231156203768515 and vehicle had IDV Rs 50,920/-(Ex CW1/2).

The said motor cycle was stolen on 30/05/2016 vide eFIR no. 016040/2016 under MV Theft u/s 379 IPC (Ex CW1/3). Police gave untraced report on 30/07/2016(Ex CW1/4). It was stated that complainant intimated OP for insurance theft claim after getting untraced report from the court so occurred some delay in filing claim.

Despite of repeated reminding and visiting OP office, claim was not passed. He received repudiation of claim where OP stated “Delay of 65 days in intimating theft.”  

It was stated that motor cycle was insured by OP and had IDV of Rs 50,920/- so was entitled for claim with 18% interest /pa. When no result occurred, filed this complaint and claimed IDV of motor cycle with compensation of Rs 50,000/-and litigation charges Rs 50,000/-.

 

After receiving notices, OP submitted written statement and denied allegations of complainant totally. It was stated by OP that complainant had to inform immediately about the loss of his vehicle as soon as theft occurred. It was stated that complainant had violated “Two wheeler Package Policy’” terms and conditions Section 1 which clearly stated that insured had to intimate immediately to Insurer/OP in writing about the loss/theft of the vehicle. The said two wheeler was stolen on 30/05/2016 and OP was intimated on 03/08/2016 ie after about 65 days delay. As there was valid insurance policy so had valid contract and both the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the policy, but insured/complainant violated Section 1 of the policy, so OP rightly repudiated claim.  Hence, there was no deficiency in the services of OP and complaint may be dismissed.  

 

Complainant filed his rejoinder and denied all the replies submitted by OP. It was stated that OP wrongfully repudiated claim as there was no delay in intimating to OP. All the requirements were completed by complainant as vehicle documents, FIR, Keys still claim was repudiated. He also submitted evidence through his own affidavit and affirmed on oath that all the facts and evidence submitted by him were correct and true. He relied on policy document, e-FIR, Untraced report from Police and claim form. 

 

OP filed their evidence on affidavit through Mr Sudhir Gulati, Assitt. Manager with OP and stated that the said loss / theft was reported after the gap of 65 days which clearly violate policy terms and condition under Sec.1 (Ex OPW1/1). Complainant had valid contract with OP so immediately intimation to OP was mandatory, but complainant intimated after the gap of 65 days. Thus, rejection of theft claim was rightly repudiated by OP (Ex OPW1/2). OP also filed written arguments and so taken on record.

Arguments were heard from both the party’s counsel and after perusal of evidences on record, order was reserved.

After going through all the facts and evidences on record, it was observed that complainant had violated Sec. 1 of policy terms and condition where insured had to intimate OP in writing immediately after loss/theft. It was also noticed that there was valid insurance cover of the motor cycle and theft occurred for which e FIR was registered u/s 379 IPC. Complainant intimated OP after 65 days gap after getting Untraced report from the court. If timely OP had been intimated then surveyor would had been appointed and loss could had been assessed in term of IDV of the vehicle. This showed that complainant had not read policy terms and conditions properly after getting his motor cycle insured from OP.

We have also taken reference of Apex court citation as “Om Prakash vs Reliance General Insurance & others” IV (CPJ) 10 SC where it was laid down that ‘mere delay’ in intimating theft to OP cannot be sole ground for repudiation. In supra case, complainant had intimated OP through UPC and FIR was lodged on the same day. In this case, E FIR was done and intimation was given after 65 days after getting untraced report. Complainant had not stated reason of delay in his complaint or during arguments, so we cannot go beyond pleading or policy terms and condition.

Though there is no merit in this complaint, but considering valid insurance policy of the vehicle and e-FIR of theft, we direct OP to pay 50 % of IDV of the vehicle within 30 days from receiving first copy of order. There shall be no order to compensation or cost.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties under Regulation 18(6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005 (in short the CPR) and the file be consigned to Record Room under Regulation 20(1) of the CPR.

(Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                       Mrs  Harpreet Kaur, Member                                                                                                                         

                                      

                                                   Sukhdev Singh, President