CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.134/2011
SH. ABHISHEK AGGARWAL
S/O SH. ARUN KUMAR GUPTA
R/O 113, SHRI RAM PLACE,
DELHI ROAD, MEERUT
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD.,
PLOT NO.60, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-III,
NEW DELHI-110020
- M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD.,
REGD. OFFICE: RELIANCE CENTRE,
19, WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG,
BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400001
- M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD.,
ISSUING OFFICE: 3RD FLOOR, PP PLAZA,
OPP. MEERUT UNIVESITY, MANGAL PANDEY NAGAR,
MEERUT, U.P.-208001
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 01.09.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
The case of the complainant is that he got his truck insured with OP for IDV of Rs.5,40,000/- for the period from 07.08.09 to 06.08.10. On 05.02.10 the aforesaid truck loaded with goods was taken by the driver of the complainant from Meerut to Delhi and was parked at V.S. Dharam Kanta. The driver and conductor went for taking tea after locking the said truck properly. When they returned back, they found the truck missing accordingly the police was informed by making a call on 100 number. FIR No.34/10 u/s 379 IPC was registered at P.S. Samaipur Badali on that very day. Alongwith the truck all the relevant papers i.e. RC, Insurance, Fitness Certificate, Permit of the above said vehicle etc. were stolen. Complainant had forgot from which company he got the vehicle insured. So after making several efforts, complainant found that he got the vehicle insured from OP but he was not having the policy number hence faced lot of problems in informing the insurance company about the loss. Ultimately on 23.04.10 complainant somehow lodged the complaint to the insurance company after giving the particulars. Insurance company vide letter dated 07.05.10 informed complainant about the receipt of the information on 23.04.10 regarding loss occurred on 05.02.10. However, it is stated there was delay of 77 days in informing the insurance company and simultaneously an investigator was appointed and complainant was asked to reply in seven days about the delay in informing the insurance company. On 15.05.10, complainant replied the letter dated 07.05.10 and also informed that all the relevant documents were stolen with the truck as such he was not knowing the insurance company and after he came to know about the insurance company, he accordingly lodged the claim on 23.04.10. Thereafter complainant received a letter dated 19.12.10 from OP whereby OP apologized complainant for lapse on their part and rendering services. However, thereafter OP arbitrarily rejected the claim vide letter dated 21.01.11. It is stated that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP in the reply admitted the sole ground of rejection of the claim that there was delay of 77 days in informing the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle and thus no chance was left for police or investigators of the insurance company to trace the vehicle. OP vide letter dated 21.01.11 informed complainant that there was violation of condition No.1 which required complainant to give notice in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
Ld. Counsel for complainant submitted that this is not in dispute that his truck was stolen on 05.02.10 and for that an FIR was lodged on the same very day. Complainant has lodged the claim on 23.04.10 only after he came to know about the insurance particulars as all relevant papers were stolen alongwith the truck. OP has asked complainant to explain delay in informing the insurance company vide letter dated 07.05.10 and that letter was duly replied by complainant vide letter dated 15.05.10 wherein he has subsequently stated that all original documents alongwith insurance policy were kept in the truck which was stolen as such he was not aware of the company from which he has taken the policy and after lots of efforts, he came to know about the insurance company therefore there was delay.
Ld. Counsel for claimant has placed a judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs B. Venkatetaswamy, Revision Petition No.2852 of 2013, decided on 06.02.2014 wherein there was some delay in lodging the claim as the vehicle was in the custody of Excise Department when the same was damaged and the claim was lodged after the same was released by the Excise Department. It was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical ground like delay in intimation and submission of certain documents.
The most important thing in case of theft of vehicle is lodging of the report with the police as it is primary duty of the police to investigate the matter. Complainant immediately reported to the police however it took time to inform insurance company as the insurance particulars were lost alongwith the truck. Repudiation of the claim on this technical ground is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to pay Rs.5,40,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from February 2012. OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
