Delhi

North

CC/223/2014

LT. COL. RAJIV DAHIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

28 May 2015

ORDER

O R D E R

BABU LAL, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle No.DL-1-SN-4854 which was insured by the O.P company bearing policy No.271601/31/2009/953 valid for the period from 03.06.2008 to 03.06.2009 for sum assured of Rs.36,000/-.  Unfortunately the alleged vehicle was stolen on 16.03.2009 and accordingly FIR No.359 dated 16.03.2009 under section 379 IPC was registered at P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.  The O.P Branch Office was also informed regarding the theft of the vehicle and the factum of theft was verified by the O.P officials.  It is alleged that the complainant completed all the formality regarding the passing of his claim.  It is also alleged that when a mail was sent by the complainant to the O.P regarding the claim and its processing the O.P sent a letter dated 15.02.2010 stating that the company has received no intimation from the complainant’s side neither has it deputed any investigator.  Complainant approached the office of the O.P for clearing his claim but official staff of O.P flatly refused to pass the claim of the complainant for the reasons best known to the O.P and its official staff.  Complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 21.03.2011 but to no avail.  On these facts complainants prays that O.P be directed to pay a sum of Rs.36,000/- on account of insured amount with interest @ 24% p.a., apart from cost and compensation as claimed. 

2.     O.P appeared and filed written statement.  In its written statement, O.P has not disputed that complainant had taken policy refer to above.  It is alleged that complainant has not given intimation of theft on time to the O.P.  It is also alleged that complainant vehicle was stolen on 16.03.2009 and intimation was given to the O.P office on 15.05.2009, so the complainant claim was filed as closed as NO CLAIM due to delay in intimation.  It is alleged that the answering O.P has sent letter dated 22.02.2010, 18.03.2010, 05.07.2010 and final reminder dated 04.03.2011 and requested for submit the necessary documents but the complainant has not submitted documents at office of the answering O.P.  Since the complainant did not comply with the requirements within the stipulated periods as such nothing is now payable to the complainant.  Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

3.     Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence affirming the facts alleged in the complaint.  On the other hand Sh. Satish Kumar Sharma, Divisional Manager has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement.   Parties have also filed their respective written submissions. 

4.     We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions of A.R. of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the O.P.

5.     It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the bike was insured by the O.P for the period from 03.06.2008 to 03.06.2009 for insured amount of Rs.36,000/- and it was stolen on 16.03.2009.  It is argued that intimation of theft over phone was given to the O.P on the same day and FIR was registered on the same day.  It is also argued that claim was filed on 17.03.2009 but it was return on the ground that it was not signed by owner of the bike which was re-submitted after getting the same signed by owner.  However, it is argued the claim was rejected on the ground of delayed intimation which is not justified.  On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the O.P that several letter and reminders were written to the complainant to furnish certain documents and information which were necessary for settling the claim.  It is argued that if the documents and information asked for supplied, the claim of the complainant can be considered.

6.     We have perused the record.  There is letter on record written by O.P to the complainant dated 22.02.2010, 05.07.2010 and 04.03.2011 requesting the complainant to furnish copy of notice given to the parking contactor and correct name of the contactor which has not been supplied.  From the perusal of the letter dated 18.03.2010 it is clear that the O.P had condone the late intimation but had asked for certain information/ documents.  It is not the case of the complainant that these documents/ information have been supplied.  Counsel for the complainant has relied upon authorities reported as National Insurance Co. Ltd.  Vs Kulwant Sing Revision Petition No.2719 of 2014, decided on 18.07.2014 and National Insurance Co. Ltd.  Vs Nitin Khandelwal Civil Appeal No.3409 of 2008, decided on 08.05.2008.  These authorities are inconsequential when the O.P has written to complainant condoning the delayed intimation.  In the facts and circumstances of the case the only order which can be passed could be that the complainant should be directed to supply documents/ information asked for by the O.P and O.P should be directed to re-consider the claim of the complainant.  Accordingly we direct the complainant to supply copies of the documents/ information asked for by the O.P immediately.  After the documents/ information has been supplied by the complainant, the O.P shall re-considered the claim of the complainant and decide it one way or the other by reasoned order within the period of 30 days from the receipt of the documents/ information.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own cost. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties by Registered post and the file be consigned to the record room thereafter.

  Announced this 28^th day of May, 2015.

(BABU LAL)                 (D.R. TAMTA)                 (SHAHINA)     

President                               Member                         Member