BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 69 of 2011 | Date of Institution | : | 04.02.2011 | Date of Decision | : | 10.05.2011 |
Ram Kumar son of Sh.Sardari Lal r/o H.No.1, PGI Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1. The Regional Manager, National Insurance Co., SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. 2. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co., Divisional Office-III, SCO No.813, Chandigarh-Kalka Road, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh. 3. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co., SCO No.85-86, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh. Raj Kumar Syal, Adv. for complainant. Sh.Nitin Gupta, Adv. for OPs PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Sh.Ram Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant got his car bearing registration NO.CH-01-AA-7701 insured with OPs for the period from 02.11.2009 to 01.11.2010 after paying premium of Rs.11,838/-. It is the case of the complainant that the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons from the parking of Sector 35-C, Chandigarh on 13.12.2009. The complainant made attempts to search the vehicle but all in vain. Thereafter, the complainant got recorded FIR No.342 dated 16.12.2009 under section 379 IPC in the P.S. Sector 36, Chandigarh. It is further the case of the complainant that he informed the OP-2 who asked him to complete certain formalities for processing the claim. The complainant was also asked to produce the untraced report and as such he visited the Police Station where he was told that the matter is under investigation and the untraced report can only be provided to him after investigation. The complainant again approached OP-2 and provided the copy of the FIR, insurance policy and also apprised them about the investigation being made by the police. The complainant was provided the untraced report on 16.03.2010 which he submitted to OPs. Then the complainant was asked to submit the report of NCRB and as such he approached the S.P. with a request to supply the same. The vehicle enquiry report was supplied by the police to him on 07.07.10 stating therein that as per the information available with the NCRB, the vehicle has not been recovered. According to the complainant, he supplied all the relevant documents to the OPs for processing the claim but the OPs returned all the documents with a letter dated 14.07.2010 stating therein that he had given the information after a long time due to which the OPs lost opportunity to investigate the case timely and as such the claim stands repudiated. Repudiation of the claim has been stated to be illegal and unjustified, hence this complaint. 2. OPs filed their written statement and took some preliminary objections and denied the averments of the complaint made in the complaint. On merits, it has been replied that the complainant has failed to observe due care in parking the vehicle and lodge the FIR immediately. That the intimation about the alleged loss of the vehicle to the insurance company was given after 8 months and as such there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, so the claim has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 14.07.2010. It has further been replied that the complainant was supposed to take due care in proper locking and security of the vehicle in question while parking the same in the market which might have resulted into alleged loss. The delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR and 8 months in intimating the OPs about the theft of the vehicle clearly speaks that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such the claim of the complainant has been rightly rejected after considering all aspects of the case and with due application of mind. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 5. Annexure C-1 is the insurance policy qua which the vehicle in question is insured for the period from 02.11.2009 to 01.11.2010 against the premium of Rs.11,838/. OPs have repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant had not taken due care at the time of parking of the vehicle in the market of Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. To prove this fact, OPs have relied upon the copy of FIR (Annexure C-2). There is nothing in the FIR to prove that the complainant had not taken due care at the time of parking of the vehicle. 6. OPs have repudiated the claim on the ground that the intimation with regard to the alleged theft of the vehicle was given to them after a lapse of 8 months which is violation of the condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy (Annexure R-2) at Pg. 22 which is reproduced as under:- “1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the Insured. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending. Prosecution Inquest Fatal Injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or other criminal act, which may be subject of claim under this Policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the Police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.” 7. Now it is established that as per the condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was required to inform the OPs regarding the theft of the vehicle immediately upon its occurrence and since the complainant did not inform the OPs immediately, therefore, he had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy due to which OPs had lost its right to investigate the matter immediately after the theft of the vehicle. 8. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 14.07.2010 (Annexure C-5) wherein it is stated that giving information after such a long time is breach of contract. 9. Admittedly, the complainant has not produced any evidence to rebut the pleas raised by OPs that the intimation with regard to the theft of the vehicle has been given after a gap of 8 months. In our considered opinion, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OPs as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy has been violated. Reliance placed on New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Trilochan Jane decided on 09.12.2009 by the Hon'ble National Commission in First Appeal No.321 of 2005 and Devender Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., III(2003) CPJ 77 (NC). Hence, it is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 10. As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 10.05.2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
