View 46316 Cases Against General Insurance
Gagan Biswal filed a consumer case on 30 Jul 2015 against The Branch Manager Shri Ram General Insurance in the Jajapur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/83/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 04 Aug 2015.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.
Present: 1. Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,
2. Shri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,
3. Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.
Dated the 30th day of July,2015.
C.C.Case No. 83 of 2014
Gagan Biswal, S/O Antaryami Biswal
Vill. Bhubanpur ,P.O.Gadamadhupur,
P.S.Jena ,Dist. Jajpur . ……………..Complainant .
(Versus)
1. The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd,Chandikhole
Branch, At/P.O. Sunguda, Dist.Jajpur.
2.Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd Manager,E -8 ,EPIP,R11CO,Sitapur,Jaipur, Rajsthan.
3. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd, At.Chandikhole ,P.O. Sunguda , Dist.Jajpur
. . …………………Opp.Parties.
For the Complainant: Mr. P.K. Ray, P Behera, M.Sadangi, Advocates.
For the Opp.Party No.2 : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate .
For the Opp.Party No.3: Mr. P.K.Ray, A.R .Sethy, Advocates.
For the Opp.Party No.1 : None.
Date of order : 30.07.2015.
MISS SMITA RAY, LADY MEMBER.
Deficiency in service is the grievance of the complainant.
The petitioner has come with this complaint petition alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. since the O.ps. have not settled the grievance of Insurance claim against the theft vehicle of the petitioner.
Briefly stated the facts of complainant’s case are that the complainant to eke out his lively hood purchased a truck bearing Regd. No.0R-04-D-8715, by availing loan from O.P no.3 (Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd) . The above noted vehicle was insured with the O.P no.1 and 2 vide policy No.10003/31/13/365084 which was valid from the period 26.10.2012 to 25.10.2013 . The above noted truck was stolen in the night of 27/28.12.12 by some unknown culprits. During subsistence of policy the above vehicle was parked near the complainant house under proper lock. On dt.28.10.2012 morning the petitioner found that the above vehicle was removed from the parking area. Thereafter the complainant sent messages to his relatives and searched for the vehicle every where and when he failed in all his attempts he intimated the O.P. no.1 about the theft of the vehicle. On the same day he lodged the F.I.R on dt.02.01.2013 before I.I.C, Jenapur police station but the Police did not registered the F.I.R. Accordingly finding no other way the petitioner filed a complaint case before J.M.F.C, Chandikhole to give direction to I.I.C, Jenapur police station to investigate the matter. The Hon’ble ,J.M.F.C, Chandikhole directed the I.I.C ,jenapur police station to register the F.I.R and to investigate the matter But the police did not take appropriate action. Owing to the above unexpected situation the petitioner finding no other way filed a case before the Hon’ble High Court which was registered as W.P (CRL) No.1085 of 2013 . By the order of the Hon’ble High Court the Jenapur police registered the F.I.R on dt. 30.12.2013. After investigation the police found that the fact of theft of vehicle is true but they could not find out any clue.
In the mean time the petitioner intimated to O.P no.1 about the theft of the insured truck. The O.P no.1 instructed to submit all original documents. Thereafter the complainant submitted all original documents . Besides this there is no result. Thereafter without considering the clarification / documents submitted by the petitioner and investigation report without considering the fact of the claim and without applying its mind repudiated the claim of the petitioner vide letter dt.24.09.2014. Accordingly the petitioner finding no other way has come with complaint petition with the prayer to direct the O.P No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.6,95,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
O.P no.1 is set- exparte vide order dt.07.04.15. After notice other O.Ps. have appeared and filed their written version denying the allegations made in the complaint petition . In the written statement O.P no.2 has taken the following the pleas:
Admittedly the O.P.No.1 and 2 are the insurer of the said vehicle of the petitioner.
O.P no.2 stated in his written version that there is no such claim raised by the complainant against the O.P. regarding theft of the vehicle bearing No.0R-04-D-8715 on 27/28.12.2012. The complainant did not raise any claim until dt.30.01.14 and not lodged any F.I.R in police station till dt.30.12.13 . As per terms and condition theft should be intimated immediately to the O.P. and to concerned police authority without any delay. But the complainant informed about theft of the vehicle to police on dt.30.12.13 after about 367 days , and on dt.30.01.14 after 398 days to the O.P no.2 ,which violates the specific terms and condition of the insurance policy. There is no deficiency in service of O.P. no.2. as already observed by the Hon’ble National Commission New Delhi, while deciding the similar matter The Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Mallikarjun Vrs.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd reported in 2013(1) CPR-328(NC), (3) Shri Kuldip Singh-Vrs.IFFCO-TOKIO GICLtd,reported in 2013(1)CPR-394(NC) , (4) Balbir Singh-Vrs-New India Assurance Co.Ltd, reported in 2013(1)CPR-574(NC), (5) Sh.Suresh Kumar Vrs. National Insurance Co.Ltd, reported in 2013(2)CPR-99(NC), (6) Rajesh Sharda-Vrs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd, reported in 2013(2)CPR-154(NC) and (7) Lakhan Pal-Vrs-United India Insurance Co. Ltd, reported in 2013(2)CPR-517(NC) and in all the above decisions the Hon’ble National Commission has given a finding that in the case of theft of vehicles the matter should be informed to the Insurance Company as also to the police immediately preferably within 24 hours of theft so as to comply the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and failure to do the same will debar the complainant / insured from any claim under the terms of the policy and in all the above cited matters the claim of complainant has been dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission. O.P no.2 further stated that in Annexture-8 regarding theft of vehicle complainant informed to police station after laps of 367 days and to the O.P after lapse of 398 days which is clearly violate the specific terms and conditions no.1 of Insurance policy that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately in the event of any accidental loss or damage caused to the complainant . Immediate information to the company is mandatory . Condition no.8 of the policy mentioned that after fulfilling of term and condition of the policy company give payment under the policy.
O.P no.3 stated in his written version that financer has no role in the said settlement. The complainant has also not alleged anything against the answering O.P no.3 since the stolen vehicle has been financed by the O.P no.3 accordingly the claim amount is directly payable to the O.P no.3 financer.
In view of the above contradicting views by both the parties we have heard the arguments from both the sides . On the date of hearing we have also come across with the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission stated below which clearly go to establish that delay in lodging F.I.R in the police station and intimation to the Insurance Company ( Specially in theft cases ) violates the terms and conditions of the policy for which the insured is no way entitle to get the insurance claim.
We have gone through the following decisions.
1. 2012(2)CPR-12 (NC),Rajesh Kumar Vrs.New India Insurance Co.
“ Lodging F.I.R in case of theft should be immediate concern for any owner of vehicle”.
2. 2012(3)CPR-280 (NC),Siraj Khan Vrs.Mahindra Finance.
“ Delay in lodging F.I.R and sending intimation about theft to insurer. Repudiation of claim on this ground would be justified”.
3. 2012(4)CPR-559 (NC) Rahul Tanwar Vrs.Oriental Insurance .
“ peril must be immediately reported to police and Insurance company”.
4. 2013(1)CPR-328 (NC) Mallikarjus Vrs.Oriental Insurance Co.
“Complaint can be dismissed on account of delayed information to Insurance Company.”
5. 2013 (1)CPR-574 (NC) Balbir Singh Vrs.New India.
“ Occurrence of theft must be immediately reported to police “.
6. 2013(2) CPR-99 (NC)-13 Suresh Kumar Vrs.National Insurance .
“ Peril must be reported Insurance company without any delay”.
7. 2013 (2) CPR-517 (NC), Lakhan Pal Vrs.United India Insurance Co.
8. F.A.No.321 of 2005 ,New India Assurance Co.Ltd,Vrs.Trilochan Jane(NC).
“ Insurance Company must be immediately informed about alleged theft
From the observations stated above, we have gone through the record in details and after perusal of the records along with documents it is cristal clear that the petitioner has submitted the claim to the Insurance Company on dt.30.01.14 after lapse of 398 days and F.I.R was registered on by police station on dt.30.12.13 after lapse of 367 days at the belated stage. In the sake of argument if it is admitted that the petitioner trying to lodge F.I.R before the police station on dt.02.01.2013 which after lapsed of 5 days . There is also no single scrap of paper filed by the petitioner to show that the complainant / petitioner informed the Insurance Company in writing immediately after the incident which violates of policy condition-1 issued by I.R.D.A.
In the above situation it was the duty of the petitioner to inform the police and Insurance Company within 48 hour as per observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2013(2)CPR-99-para-13(N.C) and F.A No.321/05(N.C) but the petitioner has not done so far which he has violated the terms and condition of the policy.
Owing to the above narrated circumstances, when the law is well settled on the above point we are inclined to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and having no alternative way the interest of justice will be best served in case the dispute will be dismissed.
O R D E R
In the result the dispute is dismissed against the O.Ps. . No cost .
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of July ,2015 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
(Shri Biraja Prasad kar ) (Miss Smita Ray)
President. Lady member.
.
Typed to my dictation & corrected by me
(Shri Pitabas Moahnty)
Member. (Miss Smita Ray )
Lady member.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.