DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC. No.43/2018
In the matter of:
Sh. SHYAM SHARMA,
S/o Sh. FAQIR CHAND,
R/o 236/7, E-BLOCK,
DAKSHIN COLONY, RAILWAY QUARTERS,
SHAKUR BASTI, DELHI-110034
…… Complainant
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
OFFICE AT:
9, TRANSPORT CENTRE,
PUNJABI BAGH,
NEW DELHI-110035
……. Opposite parties
DATE OF INSTITUTION:02.01.2018
DATE OF ORDER:26.10.2021
NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is the owner of the motorcycle make Bajaj Pulsar, vehicle bearing registration No. DL-6SAR-2604 vide its Insurance Policy bearing No.2227013116P110394034 with a IDV of Rs.51,000/- and the total premium of Rs.1,304/- valid from 04.11.2017 to 03.11.2017. It is alleged by the complainant that on 19.08.2017 at about 7:00 pm, the vehicle in question was found stolen from outside Cement Godown Railway Colony, Shakur Basti, Delhi. FIR bearing No. 0436 dated 27.08.2017 was lodged u/s 379 of IPC with P.S. Punjabi Bagh. It is submitted that intimation was given to the OP regarding the theft of the vehicle within time and filed the necessary documents as required for the claim (vide claim no. 22288). It is further submitted by the complainant that on 14.12.2017 the Claim of the complainant was rejected stating the reason that there was delay of 17 days in intimating the Insurance Company. Having no other option complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his greivance.
2. Complaint has been contested by OP. OP filed its Written Statement. Wherein it is stated that the insured is guilty of violation of terms and conditions No. 1 of the Insurance Policy and also submitted that there was a gross delay of 17 days in reporting the matter to the answering OP, which diminished the chances of recovery and prevented the answering OP from making timely investigation to ascertain the genuine of claim.
3. Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.
4. We have heard argument addressed by both the parties and have perused the record.
5. Perusal of the file shows that the vehicle was stolen on 19.08.2017 and the intimation to the police was given by the complainant on 27.08.2017. Admittedly, there is a delay on the part of the complainant in intimating the Police as well as to the Insurance Company. The complainant has taken the plea that due to the death of his Brother in law, namely Vinod Kumar on 16.08.2017, he was busy in performing the rituals and as such unable to intimate the company as well as the Police regarding the incident well within time. To support his contention, he has placed on record the Death Certificate of his Brother-in Law namely, Sh. Vinod Kumar, he further prayed that the present complaint be allowed.
It is argued on behalf of the OP that admittedly, there is a delay in intimating the Police as well as to the Insurance Company and as such the claim was rightly repudiated under the terms and conditions of the policy.
Keeping in view the contention of the complainant and the evidence placed on record by him, we are of the considered opinion that admittedly there is a delay on the part of the complainant in intimating to the Police as well as Insurance Company but the same is neither willful nor intentional and hence the delay cause is condoned and complaint is allowed with the direction to the OP insurance company as under:-
1. Process the claim of the Complainant on Non-Standard Basis.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation cost.
3. OP is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Forum on 26/10/2021.
(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
PRESIDENT
(NIPUR CHANDNA) (H M VYAS)
MEMBER MEMBER
