Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/797/2015

ICICI Lombard General Insurace Co. Ltd. Through its Agent, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Om Prakash Saini S/o Tejram Saini - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Jain

15 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 797 /2015

 

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its agent Palliwal Motors,Udai Mor,Gangapur city & ors.

Vs.

Omprakash Saini r/o Mahukala Dhawai ka Danda, Tehsil Gangapur city,Distt.Sawaimadhopur.

 

Date of Order 15.3.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Vishal Jain counsel for the appellants

Mr.Pramod Kumar counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

2

 

learned DCF, Sawaimadhopur dated 8.5.2015 whereby the claim has been decreed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that admittedly report has been lodged after inordinate delay even to the police report has been lodged after 12 days and it was the breach of policy condition hence, appeal should have been allowed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that the vehicle was stolen on 1.5.2013 at 5.30 a.m. and on the same day information was given to the police which was entered in rojnamcha and on the same day the information was also sent to Palliwal Motors, the agent of the appellant. Document of wireless information has also been submitted.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that as per policy condition it was the duty of the respondent to give written notice to the company immediately upon the theft of the vehicle. The contention of the respondent is not well founded that he had informed Palliwal Motors, the agent of the

3

 

appellant . No affidavit of Palliwal Motors has been submitted and Palliwal Motors is a party to the petition but he has not admitted the same fact. Hence, there is no reason to accept the contention that information was given to Palliwal Motors on the same day and otherwise also as per policy condition information should have been in writing. As per contention of the appellant the information to the company has been given on 10.6.2013 with inordinate delay.

 

In view of the law laid down by the Apex court in Civil Appeal No. 6739/2010 decided on 7.8.2015 (Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Parvesh Chadda ) this appeal is liable to be allowed and the order of the court below dated 8.5.2015 is set aside.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm