CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 350/2012
Sh. Maqsood Ahmad
S/o Sh. Ahmad
Presently residing at:
A-164, Durga Vihar,
New Delhi
Also at:
Village Ghaseda,
P.S. & Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat,
Haryana (Permanently) ……Complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
101006-K18, 2nd Floor,
Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi-110024
2. The Head Office
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
A joint venture with Sanlam,
South Africa,
E-8, EPIP RIICO Indl. Area,
Sitaura, Jaipur-302022,
Rajasthan
……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 04.07.12 Date of Order : 21.09.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that on 02.07.2011 he insured his vehicle Splender Plus Bike, make Hero Honda with the OP for one year, vide policy No.101006/31/12/002907, cover note No. 10000/A329878 valid upto 01.07.2012 for a total value of Rs.34,157/-. On 08.02.12 his vehicle was stolen by some unknown person at about 3:00 p.m. from the way Delhi to Sohna. On 17.02.12, an FIR No.66/12 U/s 379 IPC was registered at Police Station, Sohna, District Gurgaon. He after lodging the FIR visited the office of OP No.1 where he met with Sh. Naveen Kumar, Regional Branch of OP No.1 and stated the entire story in respect of the stolen vehicle but he asked him to call at customer care No.18001807474 to make contract to OP No.2. OP No.2 told him telephonically that they have no concern with his insurance policy and as such they are not liable to pay the compensation amount. He again contacted OP No.1 but Sh. Naveen Kumar, Regional Manager of OP No.1 alongwith his one co-worker started abusing him in filthy language, misbehaved and rebuked by passing some unpleasant words. He served a legal notice dated 12.04.12 through registered post to OPs but till today no reply has been received by him. Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OPs to give claim to him on time.
- Direct the OPs to pay the policy amount of Rs.34,157/- to the Complainant.
- Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to the Complainant and also litigation charges.
OP No.1 in its written statement has stated that the Complainant informed the OP No.1 Company on 21.02.2012 regarding theft of vehicle dated 08.02.2012 for the first time after a delay of 13 days of the alleged theft in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. They were deprived of the right to carry on proper inquiry on the spot of theft of vehicle, to verify the Registration Certificate, Driving License, place of parking, keys of vehicle, statement of parking attendant and other documents and trace out the vehicle. The Complainant informed the police on 17.02.2012 regarding theft of the vehicle dated 08.02.2012 after a delay of 10 days in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated on the ground of serious breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. OP No.1 has stated the Complainant has been negligent in securing safety and security of the vehicle as he had stated that the vehicle was left unattended on a public road, making the vehicle extremely vulnerable to theft and other damages. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
No written statement has been filed on behalf of OP No.2.
Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit-cum- rejoinder while affidavit of Sh. Vishal Gupta, Assistant Manager (Legal) has been filed on behalf of the OP-1.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Complainant and OP No.1 and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly, the Complainant had a Splender Plus Bike, make Hero Honda which was insured by the OPs for one year, vide policy No.101006/31/12/002907, cover note No. 10000/A329878 valid upto 01.07.2012 for a total value of Rs.34,157/- (copy annexure-A). Complainant lodged an FIR dated 17.02.2012 (copy annexure A-1). Annexure-B relates to the legal notice dated 12.04.12 sent to the OPs.
From the perusal of the documents, it transpires that the Complainant’s vehicle was stolen by some unknown person at around 3:00 p.m. on 08.02.12 from the way Delhi to Sohna. The Complainant had left his vehicle unattended without taking proper precaution. He registered an FIR on 17.02.12 with P.S. Sohna regarding the theft of the vehicle i.e. after 10 days of theft of vehicle. He submitted a claim with OPs on 21.02.2012 i.e. after 13 days of theft. He had not mentioned the reasons for delay which is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the policy.
According to the counsel for OPs late intimation to the OP is a breach of conditions of the insurance policy and, hence, does not amount to deficiency in service and, therefore, repudiation of claim of the Complainant is justified.
In the present case, admittedly there was a delay of 10 days in lodging the FIR and 13 days delay in sending the intimation to the OPs. The Complainant had abandoned his vehicle on Sohna road without taking proper measure/precautions. He breached terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question (Copy Ex. OPW1/C).
In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 21.09.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
21.9.2015
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
