Haryana

Sonipat

24/2014

SANJEET ANTIL S/O MEHAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANAGER SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Mahee Malik

20 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.24 of 2014

                                Instituted on:17.01.2014

                                Date of order:28.07.2015

 

Sanjeet Antil son of Mehar Singh resident of VPO Murthal, Panna Ghilan, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.  

Versus

 

The Branch Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E-8 EPIP RIICO Industrial Area, Sitarpur, Jaipur(Raj)

                                                     …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Ms. Mahi Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. HC Jain Adv. for respondent. 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that his motor cycle no.HR10R/3149 which was insured with the respondent for a sum of Rs.37,000/- was unfortunately stolen on 1.12.2012.  FIR no.604 dated 2.12.2012 u/s 379 IPC was lodged.  The complainant also intimated the respondent regarding the theft of the vehicle and has also lodged the claim by submitting all the relevant documents, but till date, the respondent has not settled the claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, the complainant has come to this Forum  and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the loss allegedly took place on 2.12.2012 and the claim was belatedly intimated to the company as on 9.8.2013 i.e. after 250 days  and hence there was breach of condition no.1 of the policy and the claim of the complainant was not admissible and stands repudiated as no claim by the respondent vide letter dated 26.10.2013 and thus, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the loss allegedly took place on 2.12.2012 and the claim was belatedly intimated to the company as on 9.8.2013 i.e. after 250 days  and hence there was breach of condition no.1 of the policy and the claim of the complainant was not admissible and stands repudiated as no claim by the respondent vide letter dated 26.10.2013 and thus, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          In our view, the repudiation of the claim on the ground of delay in intimation to the company, is wrong and not legally justified and the complainant is definitely entitled to get the claim amount from the respondent insurance company.  The observation of this Forum is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula rendered in First appeal no.43 of 2014 titled as Shri Ram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar, vide order dated 10.3.2014 and keeping in view the above said order of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.37,000/-  to the complainant.  The respondent is directed to make the payment of the above said amount within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of this order till realization. The complainant is also directed to get transfer the RC of the vehicle no.HR10R/3149 in the name of the respondent insurance company.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 28.07.2015