Haryana

Ambala

CC/258/2011

RAJ KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANACE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PARVEEN TYAGI

08 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                        Complaint No. 258 of 2011

                                                        Date of instt:  16.08.2011

                                                        Date of decision: 08.11.2016

Raj Kumar son of Sh. Hari Chand, resident of House no. 19, Green Park, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala. 

                                                                           ...Complainant.

                                                    Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company ltd. LIC Building, 2^nd Floor Jagadhri road, Ambala Cantt, through its Manager.

 

                                                                         …Opposite party.

                                Complaint under section 12 of

BEFORE:  SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT.  

                SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                

 

Present:-   Sh. Parveen Tyagi, counsel for the complainant.

                Ms. R. Rashmi Sharma, counsel for the Ops.  

Order:-

                In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant was the owner of a Motor Cycle make Bajaj Discover, bearing Chasis no. 67303, engine no. 46119, Registration no. HR-01-U-3509 and the above said motor cycle insured with the opposite party vide covenote no. 98994, valid from 27.08.2009 to 26.08.2010. Further stated that on 29.09.2009 the complainant along with his son took his motor cycle for necessary work and parked the motor-cycle out side Big Bazar, Ambala Cantt and after a period of about half an hour when they came out side from the said Big Bazar, they did not found the above said motor-cycle there. The complainant Immediately reported to the police about the missing/stolen of his motor cycle of the territorial area, but the police officials asked the complainant to trace the vehicle at his level but after despite his best efforts, his motor cycle could not be traced. Finally, the police lodged a FIR No. 291 dated 03.10.2009 against some unknown person under Section 379 IPC and after making investigation, the police submitted untraced report before Illaqa Magistrate, Ambala. Further submitted that the complainant also reported the matter to the opposite party and requested to pay the claim vide claim no. 10/99/31/10/2271 but despite repeated request, the OP failed to do the same. Further submitted that the complainant got the OP served with a legal notice dated 29.07.2011 but all in vain. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, Op appeared and filed written statement submitting that the FIR was registered regarding the theft of vehicle on 03.10.2009, but the theft was occurred on 29.09.2009 and the claim intimation given to the company on 08.10.2009 after the lapse of many days, whereas as per rules of the company, the complainant should have to informed the company within 24 hours. Further submitted in the present case, the claimant has failed to comply the terms and conditions of the company rules and regulations.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as annexure C-1 to C-10 and close their evidence. On the other hand Op also tendered an affidavit as Annexure RX along with document as Annexure R-1 to R-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as perused the record placed on file. In the present case, motor-cycle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party vide convernote no. 98994, valid from 27.08.2009 to 26.08.2010 and the motor-cycle of the complainant in question was stolen on 29.09.2009 but the FIR was registered regarding the theft of vehicle on 03.10.2009 i.e.  Annexure C-2 and the theft of motor-cycle was intimated by the complainant to the opposite party on 08.10.2009 i.e. after an inordinate delay of 10 days. It is the sole fault on the part of the complainant and thus as per terms and conditions of the policy the complainant deserves no claim on his ground and it is clear that motor-cycle was left unattended at an isolated place, which is a gross negligence on the part of complainant. On the above said ground, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hon’ble National Commission has observed in case title Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil, 2015 (3) CLT page 90 (N.C) and another case law titled as H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagchand Saini, 1 (2015) CPJ page 206 (N.C) that delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft would be violation of condition of the policy as it deprives insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to commission of theft and to help in tracing the vehicle. Moreover, in the policy, it has been specifically mentioned that claim for theft of the vehicle not payable if theft not reported to the company within 48 hours of its occurrence. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Om Parkash Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2012 (III) CPJ page 59 has observed that insurance-theft of vehicle-delay in intimation-claim repudiated-alleged deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission allowed appeal-Hence revision-terms and conditions of insurance policy are required to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity-Even delay of few days in  not intimating insurance company about incident of theft is fatal-insured loses its right to be indemnified when he himself is not vigilant about his rights and his obligations in regarding to compliance of terms and conditions of policy-impugned order upheld.  

                Perusal of document Annexure R-6 which is application dated 08.10.2009 moved by complainant to the OP insurance wherein it is mentioned that “Our motor cycle theft on 29.09.2009. We have already claim for the same on 30.09.2009”. But surprisingly, perusal of claim form (Annexure R-5) submitted by complainant to the OP Insurance company reveals that it has been submitted/filled by him on 05.03.2016, it means that the application dated 08.10.2009 has been moved by the complainant to fill the lacuna that he could not intimate the Op insurance company well within time after its stolen. Annexure R-5 submitted by Op has not been disputed by the complainant regarding its submission date i.e. 05.03.2010 which means that complainant has admitted the date of submission of claim form  on 05.03.2010.

8.             In view of the above discussion and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the judgments mentioned (supra), the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

                                                                                        Sd/-

Announced on: 08.11.2016.                                 (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                        Sd/-

   (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                         Member