Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/542/2014

Phularam S/o Jawahar Lal Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through chief Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Shankar Singh

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

APPEAL NO: 542 /2014

 

Phularam s/o Jawaharlal Saini r/o Dhani Maliyan Tan Village Jhadli Teh. Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar

Vs.

Sriram General Insurance Co. Office area Sitapura through Chief Manager & ors.

 

Date of Order 22.4.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr. Liyakat Ali -Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal- Member

 

Mr. Shankar Singh counsel for the appellant

Mr.Jaideep Singh counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 2

None present for respondent no.3 despite service

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

2

 

DCF Sikar dated 30.4.2014 by which it disallowed the complaint.

 

The complainant's bike was insured with the respondent Insurance Company and his bike was stolen on 22.5.2011 and a police report was lodged with PS Chomu. However, the theft claim of the bike was repudiated by the Insurance Co. on the ground that intimation of theft was given to the company after two months. The learned DCF accepted this contention and disallowed the complaint.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that intimation of the theft was given to the company on toll free number and claim was submitted to the company after investigation by the police. The company was not right in repudiating the claim. He has also submitted that in these cases sub-standard claim can also be awarded.

 

The learned counsel for the respondents refuted this argument. He submitted that no information was given on telephone and this was never disclosed in the complaint nor any affidavit was filed to this effect. He has drawn our attention to the appeal memo wherein the appellant has stated that due to

3

 

over sight information could not be given to the Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied on I (2013 ) CPJ 741 (NC) (Surendra Vs. National Insurance Co.), Appeal No. 321/2005 (NC) ( New India Assurance Co,. Vs. Trilochan Jane ), Revision Petition No. 2341/2012 (NC) ( Sagar Kumar Vs. United India Insurance Co. ) and Revision Petition No. 3936/2012 (NC) ( Budha Ganesh Vs. New India Assurance Co. ). The learned counsel for the company has argued that the Hon'ble National Commission has consistantly held that delay in giving intimation to the company is fatal.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on IV (2011) CPJ 557 (NC) ( Shyamala Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.). This matter related to premium saving account under which a policy had been obtained. This judgment does not help the controversy before us.

 

We have heard the respective counsels. We are of the view that the intimation to the Insurance Company was not given immediately after the incident. The contention that the company was informed on toll free numnber has no basis. This fact was not mentioned in the complaint nor any affidavit has been filed

4

 

whereas a contrary pleading has been made in the appeal memo. As per terms of the policy, the insured is bound to intimate the Insurance Company of the incident immediately. Moreso it is important in the case of theft claim so the company could also verify the genuineness of the incident. If the intimation is delayed the company is deprieved of its investigation to verify the genuineness. We find no substance in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm