Presented by Sri G.S.Pradhan, President . <br /> The case pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:- <br /> <br /> The Complainant is the registered owner of Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing Regd. No. OR- 17-E-1727 having its Engine No. DHG BNF 07010 and Chassis No.MD2DHDHZZNCF 69998 which was insured by the Opposite Party branch vide Insurance Policy No. 550901/31/07/01/00000796 under comprehensive policy and the policy was valid from Dt.04/10/2007 to Midnight on Dt.03/10/2008. The Opposite Party has wrongly mentioned the registration number of the Motor Cycle as OR-17-E-2717 instead of OR-17-E-1727 in the insurance policy paper through it has correctly mentioned the engine and chassis number.<br /> <br /> On Dt.15/05/2008 at about 11 A.M while the Complainant with one Rabindra Kumar Patel was going to Sohela, met with an accident near Haldipali chowk resulting to completely damaged of the Motor Cycle and sustained severe injury on their person. Due to his treatment he could not able to lodge claim before the Opposite Party and after recovery from the injuries on Dt.27/10/2008 and thereafter time and again the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to register the claim but the Opposite Party bluntly refused to register any claim and to accept any of the paper. <br /> <br /> Finding no way out, on Dt.17/03/2009 the Complainant sent his claim to the Opposite Party with all the papers i.e copy of R.C. Book, copy of F.I.R, copy of Insurance Policy, copy of estimate copy of letter Dt.27/10/2008 and copy of Driving License through registered post with acknowledgment which was duly received by the Opposite Party. The Complainant also sent the copy of the letter Dt.17/03/2009 to the Regional Manager at Bhubaneswar and Divisional Manager at Sambalpur which was duly received by them. In spite of receipt of the letter neither the Opposite Party nor his Regional Manager and Divisional Manager did not take any step to register the claim of the Complainant and even did not chose to reply of the letter of the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Complainant claims that, by not registering the legitimate claim of the Complainant with out any reason and not indemnifying the loss suffered by the Complainant, the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Complainant claims Rs.45,592/-(Rupees forty five thousand five hundred ninety two)only the insured value of the Motor Cycle and Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only compensation for mental agony, physical pain and harassments along with pendentelite and future interest.<br /> <br /> In its version the Opposite Party denied to have cause any deficiency in rendering service or adoption of any unfair trade practice towards the Complainant. One Motor Cycle package policy of insurance bearing No. 550901/31/07/01/00000796 was issued by the Opposite Party in favour of one Mani Patel covering his own damage and legal liability of Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing No. OR-17-E-2717 and the validity of the insurance was from Dt.04/10/2008 to Dt.03/10/2009 is not disputed. The Opposite Party contends that, the Opposite Party is not aware of the accident of the Complainant while going in the said Motor Cycle and so also any injuries sustained by the Complainant. On received of the letter Dt.27/10/2008 of the Complainant, the Bargarh Branch of this Opposite Party replied vide letter No.473 Dt.31/10/2008 stating their in that the FIR was given at the Bargarh Police Station after a lapse of four months of the alleged date of occurrence and since the information of loss was given to the insurance company after a lapse of five months and that too after expiry of his insurance policy, giving no scope to the insurance company to inspect, evaluate and to quantify the loss of the vehicle, the claim could not be entertainable by the insurance company. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Party contend that as per the provision of see 64 UM of the Insurance Act-1938, for every claim like nature, insurance company has to survey and make assessment of the loss through a Licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor. But when the claim is not intimated in time or with in a very reasonable time, it becomes difficult on the part of the insurance company to conduct spot survey and assess loss of the damaged vehicle. Further the Opposite Party contend that “it is the settle principle of law that, with the passage of time the right of the insured lapses due to inordinate delay in lodging the claim before the company and a claim does not survive at all. There is no any deficiency in rendering services or unfair trade practices by the Opposite Party hence the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the case with cost.<br /> <br /> Perused the Complainant's petition, Opposite Parties's version and the copy of documents filed by the parties and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant has insured his Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle vide comprehensive insurance policy with the Opposite Party which was valid from Dt.04/10/2007 to Dt.03/10/2008 is not disputed by the Parties.<br /> <br /> Admittedly, the vehicle met with an accident on Dt.15/05/2008 while he was going to Sohella near Haldipali chowk resulting to damage of the vehicle and sustained bodily injury. The Complainant intimated the Opposite Party vide letter Dt.27/10/2008 i.e. after a lapse of five months requesting the Opposite Party to register the claim. On refusal by the Opposite Party to register the claim, the Complainant sent claim form along with all necessary documents on Dt.17/03/2009 through Regd. Post with A.D to the Opposite Party. The accident was reported on Dt.24/09/2008 at Bargarh police station after a lapses of four months from the date of accident. The copy of F.I.R. does not discloses the cause of delay for reporting the accident. The Complainant has also not filed any discharge certificate of any hospital in where he was bedridden. He has not shown any sufficient cause which prevented him to not make any claim with the Opposite Party or not reported the matter at police with in a reasonable time from the date of accident.<br /> <br /> As per Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act 1938, for every claim of the like nature, the insurance company has to survey and make assessment of the loss through a Licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor. But when the claim is not intimated immediately after the accident, it becomes difficult on the part of the Opposite Parties to conduct sport survey and to assess the loss of damaged vehicle. It is settled proposition of law that with the passage of time, the right of the insured lapses due to inordinate delay in lodging the claim before the Insurance Company and such a claim of the Complainant does not survive at all. The Opposite Parties Insurance Company cited an Order Dt.09/12/2009 passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 in a case between New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs Trilochan Jane which fully supports the case of the Opposite Party.<br /> In view of above discussion, the Opposite Party has committed no deficiency in rendering service or unfair trade practice towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is disallowed.<br /> Complaint disposed of accordingly.<br /> No cost/compensation.