BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 222 of 2013
                            Date of institution:-22.10.2013
                            Date of decision:-6.5.2016
Manoj Kumar s/o Suresh Kumar r/o New Jain School, Ram Rai gate, Jind, District Jind.

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Jind through its Branch Manager.
                                          …Opposite party.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. Naveet Saini Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, Adv.for opposite party. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Hero Honda Glamour motor-cycle bearing registration No. HR31D-5312 and the same was got insured with the opposite party vide policy No. 1104063110P001324913 valid w.e.f. 10.11.2010 to 9.11.2011 and paid a sum of Rs.769/- as premium. It is stated that on 30.10.2011 his friend Bittu s/o Laxman Dass took his motor cycle for necessary work  and parked the motor-cycle in front of 
            Manoj Kumar Vs. UIIC
                   ….2…
his house when his friend came out of his house at about 8/900 P.M. then he did not found the above said motor-cycle there. The complainant’s friend searched out the motor-cycle here and there but could not found the same and some one stolen the motor cycle of the complainant. His friend informed the complainant and S.H.O. P.S. City Jind regarding stolen of motor-cycle. The police of P.S. City, Jind registered FIR No.726 dated 31.10.2011 under Section 379 IPC against unknown person. The complainant informed the opposite party on 8.11.2011 regarding the stolen of his motor-cycle. The complainant lodged theft claim amount with the opposite party and submitted all the necessary documents. The opposite party has wrongly repudiated the claim amount of the complainant alleging reason due to late intimation as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant served a legal notice dated 9.7.2013 through his counsel Sh. Naveen Saini Adv. upon the opposite party but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed to pay the theft claim amount along with @ 18% p.a. as well as to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.    Pursuant to notice, the opposite party appeared and filed the written reply agitating that the complainant has got no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum. On merits, it is contended that the 
            Manoj Kumar Vs. UIIC
                   ….3…
motor-cycle of the complainant was stolen on 30.10.2011 but the theft of motor-cycle was intimated by the complainant to the opposite party on 8.11.2011 i.e. after an inordinate delay of 9 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. It is a clear that motor-cycle was left unattended at an isolated place in a street, which is a gross negligence on the part of complainant’s friend. On the above said ground, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated.  All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.  
3.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, postal receipt Ex. C-2, copy of legal notice dated 9.7.2013 Ex. C-3, copy of first information report Ex. C-4, copy of application Ex. C-5, copy of RC Ex. C-6 and  copy of driving licence Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of Sh.  Hans Raj Kamboj, Senior Divisional Manager Ex. OP-1, copy of letter Ex. OP-2, copy of schedule of premium Ex. OP-3, copy of application Ex. OP-4, copy of FIR Ex. OP-5 and  copy of RC Ex. OP-6 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as perused the record placed on file. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for 
            Manoj Kumar Vs. UIIC
                   ….4…
the opposite party reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal. 
5.    Admittedly, the motor-cycle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party vide policy No. 1104063110P001324913 valid w.e.f. 10.11.2010 to 9.11.2011 and paid a sum of Rs.769/- as premium with the opposite party. The motor-cycle of the complainant in question was stolen on 30.10.2011 during the subsistence of the policy and claim lodged by the complainant was not honoured by the opposite party whereas it is case of the opposite party that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy as the theft had taken place on 30.10.2011 and informed the opposite party on 8.11.2011 i.e. after  a delay of 9 days, hence the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Ld. Counsel of opposite party referred the case law titled as 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) have weight as 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 
            Manoj Kumar Vs. UIIC
                   ….5…
(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.
6.    Further in the case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane First Appeal No.321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 has observed in the case of theft “where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the motor-cycle. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the motor-cycle for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the policy as it deprives the insurers of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle. 

            Manoj Kumar Vs. UIIC
                   ….6…
7.    Further in case titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanwal Jeet Singh Gil (NC) has observed that insurance claim-theft of car insured intimated the insurer regarding theft of his car after 39 days of the accident-held-insured has violated the mandatory terms and  conditions of the insurance policy-revision petition allowed. 
8.    In the present case, it is admitted fact that vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and the same was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy and  complainant was informed the opposite party after delay of 9 days but the complainant has not mentioned in his complaint when information was given to the opposite party. However, he has written in his complaint that the information was given to the opposite party immediately but this plea is not supported by the credible evidence. It reveals that the intimation was given to the insurance company after a delay of 9 days On this point reliance can be placed on case law titled as Surender Vs. National Insurance Co. Limited 1 (2013) CPJ page 741 National Commission because in that case the vehicle was stolen on 20.5.2008 and FIR was lodged on the same day but it has been specifically mentioned that it was obligatory on the part of complainant to intimate about the theft to the Insurance Company immediately. Similarly in the present case FIR was lodged on the same day but intimation was given to the opposite party after a period of 9 days. So it is a clear cut violation of terms and conditions of the above 

            Manoj Kumar Vs. UIIC
                   ….7…
said policy mentioned in the complaint and the above said judgment i.e. Surender Vs NIC (supra) is identical in this complaint. 
9.    In view of the above discussion, We are of the considered view that complainant has intimated the opposite party after a gap of  9 days which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party referred the terms and conditions mentioned in the Insurance Policy. Hence, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the judgments mentioned (supra) and factual position of this case, we are of the  considered view that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy and opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim  of the complainant. The authorities (supra) tendered by the opposite party is fully applicable in the present case. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and  the present complaint is  hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their own expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 6.5.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

                        Manoj Kumar Vs. UIIC
                
Present:-    Sh. Naveet Saini Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, Adv.for opposite party. 

                Arguments heard.  To come up on  6.5.2016 for orders.

                                       President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           4.5.2016

Present:-    Sh. Naveet Saini Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. Satish Bhardwaj, Adv.for opposite party. 

        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

                                                                                                President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           6.5.2016