Delhi

North East

CC/90/2016

Suresh Chand Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Ins. Co. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 90/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Suresh Chand Sharma A-1723, First Floor Block A Sector-42, Green Field Colony Faridabad 121010 Haryana	Complainant
	Versus
	Oriental Ins. Co., Lte. Through Its Branch Manager 9 Raj Block Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-32	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF ORDER      :

21.03.2016 25.08.2022 02.11.2022

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant obtained the house hold Insurance policy with the Opposite Party vide policy no. 271702/48/2013/444 for the period of 03.06.2012 to 02.06.2013 for the yearly premium of Rs. 1,546/-. The Complainant had been regularly depositing the premium. On 08/09.02.2013 the theft occurred in the house of the Complainant and the Complainant lodged an FIR with P.S Hauz Quazi, Delhi vide FIR No. 27/2013. The Complainant found that the articles i.e. mobile phone make Nokia having SIM card no. 9711453006 and one laptop make HP Pavillion G-4, old gold Bracelet weighing 25 gms., one gold chain weighing 15 gms., one locket weighing 4 gms., one gold set weighing 38 grm. and one diamond tops were stolen. The Complainant sent the intimation through e-mail to the Opposite Party regarding the theft of the above said articles on 09.02.2013. The Opposite Party appointed a Surveyor and he assessed the value of the stolen items and the report was submitted to the Opposite Party. On 06.01.2014 Police of P.S Hauz Qazi submitted untrace report. The Complainant submitted a claim of Rs. 1,47,000/- before the Opposite Party but in spite of the repeated requests and correspondence, the Opposite Party failed to pay the claim amount with interest to the Complainant. The Complainant approached the office of the Insurance Ombudsman but no response was given by the Ombudsman. Hence, it shows the deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed to pay the claim amount of Rs. 1,47,000/- with interest @ 18 % p.a to the Complainant from the date of theft an till its realization, Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation towards the harassment, mental and agony and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement wherein it has raised the objection that complaint of the Complainant is without any cause of action and the Complainant did not intimate the theft to the Complainant well in time.There is delay of 12 days in lodging the FIR. It is admitted that household insurance policy was issued in favour of the Complainant and the same was valid from 03.06.2012 to 02.06.2013. It is submitted that the policy obtained by the Complainant  covered the risk-1A Fire and Alllied Perils(Building) an insurance premium paid by the Complainant Rs. 300, 1B Fire and Allied Perils(clothing, kitchenware/crockety/cutlery, Furniture, fixtures, Miscellaneous items, Electrical/Mechanical Appliances and insurance premium paid by the Complainant Rs. 32 and Rs. 108, 3. It is submitted that the Complainant did not pay any premium for the loss on account of Burglary and House Braking All Risk (Jewellery and Valuable) 5. Breakdown of Domestic Appliances insurance premium paid by the Complainant Rs. 93/- 6. TV/VCR/DVD/ACD/P (1Computer (Rs. 10,000/-) & 1LAPTOP (Rs. 30,000/-) with accessories, 1 HP LAPTOP Pavilion G series 35,000/- and insurance premium paid by the Complainant Rs. 758/-. 7. 1 Pedal Cycle Premium paid by the Complainant Rs. 12/- and 8. Baggage premium paid by the Complainant Rs. 10/-. The insurance under this policy covered the risks subject to the strict compliance of the terms and conditions, clauses, warranties & Schedule mentioned under the policy.It is submitted that the Complainant did not complied with the terms and condition of the policy. It is submitted that loss of Jewellery and Valuables was not covered under the policy obtained by the Complainant. It is submitted that the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. It is stated that the Complainant is an employee of the Opposite Party and thus he is aware about the amount of premium to be paid and also the terms and conditions of the policy. It is stated that the claim of the Complainant has already been rejected by the Ombudsman.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Parties

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. In order to prove its case Opposite Party filed affidavit of Shri. Khem Chand Sr. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office No. 14 Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi 110092, wherein he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

5. We have heard the Complainant and Counsel for Opposite Party. We also perused the file and written arguments filed by Parties.
6. The case of the Complainant is that he obtained household insurance policy from the Opposite Party and during the validity of the said policy a theft took place in his house. In the said theft jewellery items (gold and diamond), laptop and mobile phone were stolen. He lodged the FIR regarding the theft and the police filed the untraced report. The Complainant alleges that he filed the claim before the Opposite Party and the same was rejected.  Then he filed the complaint before the Ombudsman but no action was taken by the Ombudsman. The case of the Opposite Party is that the jewellery and other valuables were not covered under the policy for the reason that the Complainant has not paid the premium for the same. It is also its case that the Complainant did not take the proper care and precautions as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also its case that the Complainant was suppose to know that he did not pay the premium for jewellery items and also he was suppose to take the proper care and precautions as he himself was an employee of the Opposite Party.  It is the case of the Opposite Party that the claim of the Complainant was rejected by the Ombudsman.
7. Form the perusal of the record; it is reveal that the Complainant has failed to show any proof that he had paid the premium for loss of jewellery items. He has also failed to show that he has taken the proper care and precautions as required by the terms and conditions of the policy. The Complainant has not filed any proof regarding the ownership of the stolen articles.
8. The Complainant in his complaint did not give any manner in which the theft was committed in his house. The Complainant has also concealed the material fact and has come up with a false story that the Ombudsman rejected his complaint. The perusal of the file shows that order dated 09.11.2015 passed by the Ombudsman has been filed on record and the perusal of the same shows that vide the said order, the complaint of the Complainant was rejected and at that time the Complainant was present before the Ombudsman. Therefore, it is very much clear that the Complainant has concealed the material facts and mis-represented the facts.
9. In view of the above discussion we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly.
10.  Order announced on 02.11.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President