Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/831/2016

Khan Bhadhur Khan S/O Abdull Saleem Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Regional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Ayajudin Khan

07 Apr 2017

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 831 /2016

 

Khan Bahadur Khan s/o Abdul Saleem Khan r/o House No. 1 Ka-18 Housing Board, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

 

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through regional Manager, Regional office- 2^nd floor, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chander Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 7.4.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Auajudeen Khan counsel for the appellant

 

 

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

2

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 1^st dated 10.6.2016 whereby the original complaint of the appellant is dismissed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that specific condition as regard to reporting of theft to the company was never intimated to him and condition which is different from general condition could not be set up without permission of insurance regulatory authority. Hence, the claim should have been allowed.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was stolen on 1.1.2013 for which insurance company was informed on 28.2.2013 after delay of 57 days. Hence, the claim has rightly been disallowed by the Forum below.

 

The condition between the parties was that in case of theft the matter should be reported to the company within 48 hours and admittedly this condition has not been fulfilled by the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that this condition was never intimated to him. Be that may be the case, the standard condition is in the knowledge of the appellant and hence, it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to report

3

 

the theft immediately to the insurance company. Hence, the appellant has not fulfilled the specific condition or the standard condition and further more this contention of non-intimation has not been agitated before the Forum below.

 

The contention of the appellant is that the condition is itself is void as it has been changed without permission of the insurance regulatory authority. Be that may be the case, this contention has also not been raised before the Forum below and further more when condition has been accepted by the appellant, now he cannot agitate contrary to it.

 

In view of the above there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and stands dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm