Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/123/2019

Hariram - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. C.M. Aswal

14 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 123 / 2019

 

Sh. Hariram aged 60 years’ S/o Sh. Nem Chand

R/o House No. 200, Amaun, Khatima

District Udhamsingh Nagar

…… Appellant / Complainant

 

Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited

through Branch Manager, Tanakpur Road

Khatima, District Udhamsingh Nagar

…… Respondent / Opposite Party

 

Sh. Diwas Subba, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

Sh. R.K. Garg, Learned Counsel for Respondent

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                         Member-II

                                   

Dated: 14/06/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udhamsingh Nagar (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 34 of 2017; Sh. Hariram Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, by which the consumer complaint filed by the appellant – complainant has been dismissed.   

 

2.       Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, the appellant (complainant before the District Commission) is the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No. UK06-CA-2655 (truck), which was comprehensively insured with the respondent – opposite party (insurance company) for the period from 24.05.2013 to 23.05.2014 at an IDV of Rs. 3,69,000/-.  During the validity period of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle was stolen from Saurabh Hospital, Khatima.  The vehicle was traced at several places, but could not be recovered.  On 18.09.2013, the complainant gave information regarding theft of the vehicle at Chowki Incharge, Chakarpur, P.S. Khatima, which was published in daily newspaper “Dainik Jagran” on 19.09.2013.  Sh. Ajay Dhyani, Kotwal informed the complainant that investigation is going on.  The F.I.R. of the complainant was, however, lodged on 05.10.2013.  The complainant had given intimation regarding theft of the insured vehicle to Sh. Tejendra Singh at Khatima office of the insurance company, who had received the intimation, but did not give any receipt thereof.  The official of the insurance company told the complainant that after submission of Final Report by the police, he should submit the same with the insurance company and then his claim would be paid / settled.  The insurance company got the matter investigated through its investigator.  The complainant submitted all the required documents of the vehicle with the investigator.  The Final Report was submitted by the police on 03.08.2014, which was accepted by the competent court.  The complainant submitted the Final Report as well as the order of the court with the insurance company on 26.02.2015.  The insurance company, however, repudiated the claim of the complainant through letter dated 21.12.2015, thereby committing deficiency in service.  Thus, a consumer complaint was instituted before the District Commission.

 

3.       The insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was averred that the subject vehicle was insured under package policy.  The F.I.R. regarding theft of the vehicle was lodged by the complainant at the Chakarpur, Kotwali Khatima after about 19 days’ from the date of occurrence, whereas as per the terms and conditions of the insurance company, the same should have been lodged immediately upon occurrence.  The intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was given by the complainant to the insurance company on 26.02.2015, after one year and five months’ of the occurrence, whereas written intimation regarding theft of the vehicle should have been given immediately by the complainant to the insurance company.  The investigator appointed by the insurance company also confirmed the factum of delayed intimation on the part of the complainant to the insurance company.  The claim of the complainant has been repudiated on account of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on his part. 

 

4.       After giving opportunity of hearing, the consumer complaint has been dismissed by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.01.2019.  Feeling aggrieved, the appellant – complainant has preferred the instant appeal.  On the date of hearing of arguments before the District Commission, there was no representation on the part of the complainant and the District Commission had heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company.

 

5.       We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 

 

6.       It is admitted fact that the appellant – complainant is the registered owner of the subject vehicle.  It is also admitted fact that the subject vehicle was comprehensively insured with the insurance company.  It is further admitted that the subject vehicle was stolen during the validity period of the insurance policy.  The questions to be determined in this appeal are whether there has been delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the F.I.R. with regard to the theft of the subject vehicle or not and also whether there has been delay on the part of the complainant in reporting the matter regarding theft of the subject vehicle to the insurance company or not.

 

7.       As per the own version of the complainant, the vehicle was stolen on 16.09.2013.  The complainant has stated that he has given intimation with regard to theft of the insured vehicle to the police on 18.09.2013, which was published in daily newspaper on 19.09.2013.  The copy of the application dated 18.09.2013 written by the complainant to Chowki Incharge, Chakarpur, P.S. Khatima, District Udhamsingh Nagar with regard to theft of the insured vehicle, is on record, but the same does not bear any receipt of the police station, in order to show that the same was received at the police station on 18.09.2013.  It is true that a news regarding theft of the vehicle was published in the daily newspaper dated 19.09.2013, but no legal cognizance of the same can be taken to say that the F.I.R. regarding theft of the insured vehicle was lodged by the complainant on 18.09.2013, particularly for want of any documentary evidence in that regard. 

 

8.       The copy of the F.I.R. available on record shows that the same was lodged on 05.10.2013, as has also been averred by the complainant in para 2 of the consumer complaint.  Thus, the F.I.R. regarding theft of the subject vehicle came to be lodged after about 19 days’ of the occurrence.              

 

9.       The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company per letter dated 21.12.2015, on the ground that the F.I.R. was lodged on 05.10.2013 and the intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was given to the insurance company on 26.02.2015, which is violation of condition No. 1 of the insurance policy.  Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the insurance company is on record.  In the said letter, the complainant has himself stated that the F.I.R. with regard to theft of the vehicle was lodged on 05.10.2013.  The said letter bears the stamp of the insurance company and the date is mentioned as “26.02.2015”.  In the said letter, there is endorsement dated 26.02.2015 on behalf of the insurance company regarding receipt of F.I.R. and Final Report.  There is further endorsement dated 26.02.2015 on behalf of the insurance company to the effect that intimation regarding theft of the insured vehicle has been given in the office today, i.e., on 26.02.2015.  There is no dispute that condition No. 1 of the insurance policy provided that in case of theft of vehicle, the insured shall give immediate notice to the insurance company.  The District Commission has taken cognizance of the said condition and has quoted the said condition in the impugned judgment and order, which we need not repeat.  Thus, the documentary evidence available on record clearly shows that there was delay of 19 days’ in lodging the F.I.R. and a delay of one year and five months’ in reporting the matter to the insurance company, which is clearly violation of condition No. 1 of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant and the same disentitles him from getting any claim from the insurance company.  If the complainant has allegedly given intimation regarding theft of the insured vehicle to the insurance company, he should have procured receipt thereof and if he did not take any receipt, he alone is responsible for the same and in the light of the documentary evidence available on record, it can not be said that the written intimation regarding theft of the insured vehicle was given to the insurance company on any date prior to 26.02.2015 and the theft having taken place on 16.09.2013, the same can very well be termed as violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the complainant.

 

10.     The District Commission has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence available on record and recorded finding that the appellant – complainant has committed violation of condition No. 1 of the insurance policy, as he has reported the theft of the subject vehicle to the insurance company with undue delay.  We find ourselves in agreement with the finding recorded by the District Commission and see no reason to interfere with the same.  The impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission, thereby dismissing the consumer complaint, does not call for any interference by this Commission.  The appeal being bereft of any merit, warrants dismissal.

 

11.     Appeal is dismissed.  No order as to costs.        

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                                President

 

K