Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/6

M.D Mumtaz Miya - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amardeep Jha and Poonam

06 Jul 2018

ORDER

Complainant Md. Mumtaz Miya has filed this case for a claim of price of stolen motorcycle with compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.

2          Brief of the case complainant is that he is the owner of motorcycle model Hero Glamour having Engine JA06EJF9M-14445, Frame No. MBLJA06AME9M-14681. He purchased the motorcycle on 08.05.2015 on payment of Rs. 56,193/-. The motorcycle was insured with the O.P. National Insurance Co. on 10.05.2015 for the period from 10.05.2015 to midnight 09.05.2016 having Policy No. 39010231156200582182.

            On 30.05.2015 complainant parked the motorcycle inside the premises of C.C.L. at Central Colliery Filter Plant at 12:00A.M. in the night for doing his shift duty. After his duty at 04:00 A.M. he found his motorcycle was not at the place where he had parked. He searched but failed to trace out. Then FIR was lodged on 11.06.2015 at Chandrapura Police Station and lodged claim before O.P.

           But O.P. vide letter dt. 16.09.2015 repudiated the claim.

            Complainant sent legal notice on 17.12.2015 and O.P. replied on 12.01.2016. Hence this case.

3          Complainant filed the following documents in support:-

Anx-1 Copy of Cash memo.

Anx-2 Copy of Insurance Policy.

Anx-3 Copy of receipt for registration,.

Anx-4 Copy of the letter of repudiation dt. 16.09.2015.

Anx-5 to 5/1 Copies of FIR and Final Form.

Anx-6 to 6/1 Copies of legal notice and reply.

4          O.P. National Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared and filed W.S. It is submitted that the claim is not maintainable as there is no cause of action.

            The policy is admitted but the claim is repudiated on account of violation of terms and conditions for giving information for delay of 14 days after the occurrence. Even police is informed about the theft after 10 days which caused loss of valuable time to trace the motorcycle.

            O.P. relied upon the law of F.A. 321/2005 National Commission, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Trilochan Jane.

                                                            F I N D I N G S

5          We perused the record and hold the complainant is a consumer and dispute is a consumer dispute.

6          The dispute is the repudiation of the claim on account of violation of terms and condition for giving information of theft of motorcycle for about 15 days and even to the police after 10 days of the occurrence on 30.05.2015.

    The insurance contract is simply a contract and violation of terms and condition is vital in case of theft.

      In the instant case the motorcycle was stolen on 30.05.2015 but the FIR was lodged on 11.06.2015, delay of 10 days. Anx-6/1  legal notice reply of O.P. shows the information of theft was given on 15.06.2015, delay of 14 days. The terms and conditions is to inform the O.P. and police within 24 hours. This is the clear violation of the terms and conditions which did not give police as well as insurance co. to investigate the theft immediately to trace out.

       The law laid down by National Commission in F.A. No. 321/2005 in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Trilochan Jane is applicable in the instant case.

        Therefore, we found that O.P. has valid and reasonable ground to repudiate the claim.

7          In the result, we do not found valid cause of action for this present case, and as such the case is not maintainable and it is, hereby, dismissed.

            O.C. is directed to deposit the record in record room.