Order-18.

Date-16/03/2016.Complainant Dipak Kumar Mirdhaby filing this complaint has submitted that complainant is owner of a Bajaj Auto Rickshaw (year of manufacturing -2009) having its Registration No. WB25C 0701, Engine No. AAM BRK 19803 and Chasis No. MDZAAAMZZRWK 01545 what complainant purchased through his financier GayaprasadHiralal (Prof. op no.3) and got insured with the op no.1 by paying a sum of Rs.3,614/- on the basis of a valid policy bearing no. 334027/31/12/005210 for a period from 31.03.2012 to 30.03.2013 stating Insured Declare Value (IDV) Rs. 1,00,000/-.

          Within the policy period the said vehicle of complainant was stolen by some unknown person on 23.01.2013 and complainant tried to search out his vehicle in all the nearest places, but failed to trace and ultimately complainant informed the incident to the Officer-in-charge of Phool Bagan Police Station and lodged a complaint vide GDE No. 2348 and FIR No. 26 dated 24.02.2013.

          Immediately after that complainant approached the proforma op no.3 for help and requested to lodge a claim with the op no.1.  Proforma op no.3 on behalf of the complainant lodged a complaint with op no.1 under complaint No. 10000/31/13/c/060313.  Accordingly op no.1 deputed an investigator to investigate the case who completed his investigation and submitted his report to op no.1 and during processing the claim op no.1 requested by a letter dated 05.02.2013 to complainant to submit the entire registration papers and keys of the vehicle together with letter of Subrogation, Indemnity Bond and payment of discharge voucher duly signed or discharged on the court stamp papers for Rs.220/-. Though op no.1 did not disclose any amount payable against that claim to the complainant.  But complainant submitted the aforesaid document to the op no.1 through op no.3 on 03.04.2013. 

          But complainant regretted to submit that instead of his requests to op no.1 and their officers by letters dated 31.05.2013, 07.02.2014. 04.03.2014, 10.03.2013 respectively but no fruitful result is achieved.  Ultimately complainant made grievance before Asst. Director of IRDA who registered the complaint vide no. 05-14-004913 dated 29.04.2014 and thereafter op no.2 asked again to submit all the documents together with Indemnity Bond, Letter of Subrogation and payment discharged voucher duly signed.  Though complainant submitted the same and op no.2 also reported that if the documents would not be sent, in that case, that claim shall be closed.  So, finding no other alternative, complainant appeared before this Forum for getting necessary relief.

          On the other hand op nos. 1 & 2 by filing written statement submitted that the entire complaint is full of suppression of fact.

          It is specifically mentioned that complainant purchased the said policy which was valid from 31.03.2012 to 30.03.2013 having sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-.

          But as per complaint the said auto rickshaw was allegedly stolen on 23.01.2013 and complainant lodged FIR on 24.01.2013 to inform the op Insurance Company about the alleged theft that is 22.01.2013 that is after long 10 days after alleged theft of information of the op Insurance Company and requested to complainant to co-operate by providing the relevant documents to complete the process and also that the op insurance company sent a letter many time to complainant on dated 05.02.2013, 27.02.2013, 26.03.2013, 24.04.2013, 04.06.2013, 09.05.2014, 14.05.2014 and 06.06.2014 regarding furnish the documents. But complainant did not submit it ultimately.  Moreover there was a huge delay on the part of the complainant intimated to the alleged theft to the Insurance Company and to the police and as such both insurance company and police lost minimum opportunity for recovering the vehicle, alleged to have been theft by using their own network.

          At the same time as per Condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy – Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require.  Every letter claim writ summons and/or process shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the Insured.  Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending. Prosecution Inquest Fatal Injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy.  In case of theft or other criminal act, which may be subject of claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the Police and Co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.

          But practically in the complaint, there is no such version about getting the same any safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage.  So, complainant neglected to comply the terms and conditions of the policy and delay has not been explained and op tried to recover the same.  So, the present complainant is not entitled to get any claim for which op has prayed for dismissal of this case.

Decision with reasons

          On an indepth study of the complaint and written version and also the terms and conditions of the Policy, it is found that no doubt the alleged theft was committed on 23.01.2013.

          But peculiar fact is that it was reported on 02.02.2013 that means long after ten days and about delay there is no explanation of the complainant and no doubt delay in informing to Insurance Company about the theft of the vehicle is clearly against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.  Though according to the terms and conditions of the policy information of theft should have been immediately reported to the Insurance Company.

          However, op after receipt of the claim repeatedly reported to the complainant to provide the documents, key etc.  But complainant did not submit it in time.

          Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that the matter was reported to Police on 24.01.2013.  Then invariably complainant reported the matter to the proper authority for proper investigation and that is the provision of law and when criminal offence takes place and a report is lodged with the police and the police is the only statutory authority to investigate the case an no other authority and the final report of the police has to be acted upon.  Some delay of few days in intimating about the information and lodging the claim by the insured to the insurance company cannot form a ground for doubting the theft or burglary.

          But in this context we have gone through the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in ParveshChander Chadha (supra) and in that judgement Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided and observed where there is no explanation of delay or unusual delay in informing to Insurance Company about the incident of theft as per condition of policy, Insurance Company cannot entertain it and as per observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court that on account of delayed intimation, Insurance Company is deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same and Consumer Fora must have to consider the grave lapse on the part of the insured and in the present case no doubt complainant failed to give any explanation for his unusual delay and also to handover the documents and key.

          So, as per conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the op despite the fact that complainant had not complied with the terms of the policy.

          In view of the above findings, we are convinced to hold that the present complaint fails and there is no laches, negligence or deficiency on the part of the ops.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost against all the ops.