Delhi

East Delhi

CC/182/2014

YOGESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI RAM GEN. INS - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2016

ORDER

           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no         182/2014

                                                                                                   Date of Institution               17/02/2014

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               26/10/2016        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                        27/10/2016                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr Yogesh Kumar Tyagi, adult   

S/o Sh Samay Singh     

R/o- 116, Lokpriya Vihar

Khora Colony, Ghaziabad, UP …………………………....…………….Complainant

                                                                    Vs

Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.  

506-507,5^th Floor,

Pragti Deep Building,

Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Delhi 110092…..……..……………..Respondent

 

Complainant’s Advocate        Mahesh Kumar

Opponent Advocate               Naveen Kumar Chauhan  

 

Quorum   Sh Sukhdev  Singh       President

                  Dr P N Tiwari                Member

                  Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member                                                                                             

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

 

Complainant had an auto rickshaw vide registration no. UP14B T7637. This auto had hypothecation with Lord Fincap Ltd. and was insured with OP from 22/09/2010 to 21/09/2011 vide policy no. 101046/31/11/003949. The said auto was stolen on 13/04/2011 and FIR was lodged vide no. 674/2011 at PS Sahibabad UP u/s 379 IPC. The said vehicle could not be traced by the police, so untraced report was given. Complainant filed his claim with all the claim papers with OP, but OP did not pay the claim, so filed this complaint claiming for harassment of Rs 99,000/-.

Notice was served. OP submitted written statement and denied all the allegations. It was admitted that the said vehicle of the complainant was insured and had IDV Rs 1,20,106 on the date of theft marked as RW1/A.  It was stated that OP was informed after 02 days and police complaint/FIR was lodged after 08 days after survey report. As per policy condition, a notice had to be given in writing to the OP/insurer immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of claim.

In case of theft or any criminal act, claimant had to give notice to the police immediately and cooperate with the OP. Here, complainant did not provide required claim documents required for claim process. The detail surveyor report dated 28/05/2011 was submitted which stated that the claim documents were not submitted by complainant and delay in informing Op and Police, claim was rejected.  The report was marked as RW1/B.

OP had sent no. of letters to complainant for submitting required claim documents, but complainant failed to comply the claim requirement. Letters marked as RW1/C were on record. OP had taken ref. of United India Assurance vs M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, JT 2004 (8) SC 8, where it was held that terms of the contract has to be read strictly. So, complaint was not maintainable under policy terms and conditions.

Complainant had not filed rejoinder and evidences on affidavit and also not put his appearance from 14/07/2014 ie dates of hearing. OP filed their evidences on affidavit which were on record. Notices were served for appearance of both the parties but even on the date of arguments, none were present.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record and observed that claim rejection by OP was justified as complainant did not comply the claim process by submitting required documents. Also, rejection was based on the terms of the policy where complainant had intimated OP late and police by 8 days.

Thus, we came to the conclusion that due to the negligence and deficiency on the part of complainant, case has no merit and same deserve to be dismissed without cost. So, the complaint is dismissed without cost.

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Act and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

 Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member                                    (Dr) P N Tiwari – Member                                                           

                                      

                                           Mr Sukhdev Singh - President