BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, REWARI.
Consumer Complaint No: 243 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 25.05.2012.
Date of Decision: 04.02.2015.
Parveen Kumar son of Shri Virender Singh resident of village Dhani Kolana, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari.
…....Complainant.
Versus
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Corporate office: E-8, EPIP, RICCO Industril Area, Sitapura, Jaipura-302022 ( Rajasthan).
….…Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act
Before: Shri Raj Kumar ………. …..………..PRESIDENT
Shri Kapil Dev Sharma…………………MEMBER
Present : Shri P.K.Sharma , Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Bhupesh Yadav, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
Per Raj Kumar President
Factual matrix comprising the case of the complainant, shorn of details, is that Hero Honda Splender bearing registration no. HR-36-M-7813 of the complainant duly insured with the opposite party for the period from 17.10.2011 to 16.10.2012 was stolen in the midnight of 28/29.2.2012 duly locked and parked and to this effect FIR no.82 dated 2.3.2012 was also registered by the police of Police Station Dharuhera. It is alleged that the complainant accordingly tried to inform the opposite party on toll free number and also submitted the claim form by completing all the formalities but the claim was rejected vide letter dated 17.3.2012 wrongly and illegally; hence this complaint.
2) The petition has been contested only on the ground of inordinate delay of seven days in intimating the insurance company and of three days to the police in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
3) We have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through both oral as well as documentary evidence on the file thoroughly.
4) Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen on 29.2.2012 and FIR was lodged on 2.3.2012 i.e. after a delay of about three days. The theft was reported to the opposite party on 7.3.2012 i.e. after a delay of seven days. The claim was declared
as no claim by the opposite party by invoking condition no.1 of the policy wherein the intimation was to be given immediately upon occurrence of such an act. The question that is to be seen is as to whether the complainant has taken reasonable steps and acted without loss of time. Under given circumstances of the case, the complainant has field an affidavit Ex. CW-1/F showing that he made sincere efforts to approach the insurance company telephonically on toll free number and also contacted their agent to do the needful. The opposite party has not led any evidence to show that the complainant has not taken reasonable steps or in other words was negligent and careless in reporting the matter. It is natural that after such a loss one tries to search out the vehicle before rushing to the police station or intimating the insurance company. No malafides has come on record on the part of the complainant. Thus, in our view, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is not legal.
5) Resultantly, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay the insured value of Rs. 34,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment. The complainant is also allowed compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses which are quantified at Rs.5500/- against the opposite party. The compliance of the order be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Announced
4.2.2015.
President,
Distt. Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Rewari.
Member,
DCDRF,Rewari.
