BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:38 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 11.01.2012.
Date of Decision:28.07.2016
Vikas Chander son of Shri Dharampal Chahar, resident of House No. 1375/7, B-50, B Block, New Bharat Nagar, Bhiwani (Haryana).
….Complainant.
Versus
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, having its Corporate office at E-8. EPIP RIICO, Sitapur, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through its constituted attorney.
…...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Ms. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Vijay Beniwal, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is owner of a Motor Cycle Hero Honda bearing registration No. HR-16J-1201Engine No. KC12EBAGC0962, Chassis No. MBLKC12ECAGL10108 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party vide insurance policy bearing No. 101047/31/12/003884 which was valid from 08.06.2011 to 07.06.2012. The complainant alleged that on 03.10.2011 above said vehicle was stolen and FIR No. 555 dated 11.10.2011 was registered in P.S. City Bhiwani. The complainant also informed the OP regarding the theft. The complainant alleged that the police was not traced out the said vehicle and in the end un-trace report was filed by the police in the court. The complainant further alleged that after completion of all the formalities the claim was submitted with the Opposite Party for making payment of insured amount but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that as per intimation and FIR, the motor cycle in question was stolen on 03.10.2011 but complainant failed to lodge the FIR immediately after the incident and also failed to intimate the insurance company regarding the alleged theft. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 to Annexure C-4 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite party placed on record supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the vehicle in question was stolen on 03.10.2011 and an FIR No. 555 dated 11.10.2011 was lodged and the company was also intimated about the theft of the motor cycle in question by the complainant. He submitted that the OP has illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 24.11.2011.
7. Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that there is delay of 8 days in lodging the FIR by the complainant regarding the theft of his motor cycle and there is delay of 11 days in intimating the insurance company about the theft of the car. Therefore, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the company vide letter dated 24.11.2011 Annexure C-4.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on the record. The OP vide letter dated 14.10.2011 Annexure C-3 asked the complainant to clarify the delay of 11 days in intimating the insurance company about the theft of the car. In the written argument filed by the complainant, he has submitted that the complainant explained the delay in the covering letter which is Annexure C-4. As per the contention of the complainant the motor cycle in question was stolen on 03.10.2011. But no untrace report has been produced by the complainant on the file, even after a lapse of about 5 years. The Hon’ble National Commission in case of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Mahender Jat [2015] CJ 181 (N.C.) observed as under:-
We have considered the rival contentions. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra) dismissed the complaint holding that in terms of the policy issued by the insurance policy, the insured was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the accident. Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. It was further held that the insurance company could not be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the insured despite the fact hat he has not complied with the terms of the policy.
In view of the settled legal position, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 28.07.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
