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.269/2010
SHRI KRISHAN
S/O SHRI BALBIR SINGH,
R/O VILL. & P.O. CHHAWLA,
NEW DELHI-110071
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
2ND FLOOR, PLOT NO.60, PHASE-III,
OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
OPPOSITE STATE BANK OF INDIA,
OKHLA, NEW DELHI-110020
THROUGH ITS MANAGER/CONCERNED OFFICER
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 31.05.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
Complainant got his car insured with OP for the period 05.03.2008 to 04.03.2009 for IDV of Rs.5,80,000/-. The said vehicle was stolen on 25.11.2008 and original RC and other documents were lying in the said vehicle. The matter was immediately brought to the notice of police and in this regard an FIR No.868 dated 28.12.2008 u/s 379 IPC was registered at P.S. Dwarka. The matter was also brought to the notice of OP within stipulated period and a claim application in this regard was moved vide Claim No.2081287873. Finally, police issued untraced report on 28.02.2009. Later on the said vehicle was found in fully damaged condition as the same was found in burnt condition within the jurisdiction of P.S. Chandni Bagh, Panipat, Haryana. Information was sent to PS Dwarka. The said vehicle was brought to Delhi and towing charges were paid by complainant. The fact was brought to the notice of OP and fresh claim was filed vide Claim No.2101058324 dated 05.03.2010. All the necessary documents were submitted to the surveyor. Complainant was informed that claim has been closed as the vehicle has been recovered. Finding no option legal notice was served, despite of that the claim was not passed. It is prayed that OP be directed to pay the claim of Rs.5,80,000/- and also to pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as legal charges.
OP in reply took the plea that there was inordinate delay of 34 days in registration of FIR and there is total contradiction regarding the incident as detailed in the claim form to the one mentioned in the FIR. FIR was lodged by Shri Om Prakash who stated that on 25.11.2008 they had come to Sector 18 MIG DDA flats, Dwarka and were going back after meeting the persons of the block and when they reached in front of sector 17-A at 10.30 P.M., they parked the vehicle for urinating leaving key in the car and when they came back, they found that the car has been taken away by three-four persons. Whereas in the claim form, it is stated that at the time incident, two persons were going in the car and the car was intercepted by three boys who came on motorcycle. The driver was dragged outside and the owner of vehicle i.e. claimant was hit by the revolver butt on his forehead as a result he became unconscious and the driver was put in the vehicle and taken away with other person. The other person was dropped in the way and the car was taken away.
It is submitted that the complainant has given false information in the claim form. The claim was repudiated on the ground that there was inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR, no information was given to the police on 100 number, intimation was given after registration of the FIR, vehicle was recovered in burnt condition just after police filed untraced report, insured vehicle was driven by Sh. Om Prakash as per FIR and by complainant as per claim form.
We have carefully perused the record and gone through the written submission of the parties.
So far as information to OP is concerned, it seems the information was given to OP before the registration of the FIR because the surveyor vide letter dated 11.12.08 has sought information from complainant and the second claim was lodged after registration of FIR. Complainant has specifically stated that the first claim was bearing No.2081287873 but complainant has not given the date of the claim whereas the second claim given on 05.03.2010 vide claim No.2101058324. So far contradiction regarding the incident dated 25.11.2008 as stated in the FIR and claim form is concerned, the contention of complainant is that he submitted a blank claim form by signing only and the information mentioned in the claim form is not in his handwriting and not filled up the same. We do not agree with the contention of the complainant. The claim form is bearing the signature of complainant. The claim form is totally filled up. There is no reason for the insurance company to itself give the details in the claim form without the same being narrated by the complainant.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for OP that there is delay of more than 33 days in registration of FIR and no information was given on PCR on 100 number hence the claim is not maintainable.
It is significant to note that the information was given to PCR on the same day as is evident from the FIR No.868 dated 28.12.2008. In the FIR it is mentioned that information was received by PCR on the same day on 26.11.2008 vide DD No.2 and this is also mentioned in the closure report date 28.2.2009 that the PCR call was received on 26.11.2008 which was kept pending. The only duty of the complainant was to inform the police and complainant immediately after the incident, informed the police for which DD No.2 was recorded however the same was kept pending. No fault can be attributed on the part of complainant in this regard. The police should have recorded FIR on that very day and the police has taken more than one month to record the FIR.
But there is a total contradiction in the narration of the incident in the claim form and in the FIR. It creates a very serious doubt about the incident which is very important. The complaint has not come out with the truth. In the claim form it is stated that the complainant was hit with the butt of the revolver and the car was snatched whereas as per FIR, the complainant was not present and the car was taken away while the driver and other person were urinating at 10.30 P.M. and the key was left in the car.
If version in the FIR is accepted, then there was negligence on the part of driver as he has left the key in the car. Anyhow the story put forward by the complainant in the FIR and claim form is contradictory. OP is justified in repudiating the claim.
In view of above stated facts, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT