Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/411/2013

Robin Vij S/o Dinesh Vij - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

None for complainant.

18 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

 

                                                               Complaint No. 411 of  2013.

                                                               Date of institution: 31.05.2013.

                                                               Date of decision: 18.08.2017.

 

Robin Vij aged about 22 years son of Shri Dinesh Vij, resident of House No. 755, Mahavir Colony, Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                  

                                                                                                                          …Complainant.

                                                 Versus

1. United India Insurance Co. Limited, Yamuna Nagar through Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Co. limited, Regd. and Head office at 24, whites Road, Chennai through its M.D.

 

                                                                                                                     …. Respondents.

                 

BEFORE    SH. DHARAMPAL, PRESIDENT

                  SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                  SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.          

 

 

Present:        None for the complainant.   

                    Sh. Parmod Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OPs. 

                  

 

ORDER      (DHARAMPAL PRESIDENT)

 

1.                Complainant Robin Vij has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (hereinafter Respondents will be referred as OPs) 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is regd. owner of Motor cycle make Bajaj Pulsar 220 DTS bearing registration No. HR-02-Z-7773 and he got his vehicle insured from the OPs at Yamuna Nagar branch office vide policy cover note No. 101521 effective from 07-09-2012 to 06-09-2013 on payment of premium of a sum of Rs. 1,563/- and this policy covers the theft risk as well together with other risks. Since consideration has passed and the OPs have rendered their services for a consideration to the complainant, as such there exists relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties to this complaint. It is submitted that on 11-09-2012, the complainant, on the above motor cycle No. HR-02-Z-7773, had gone to market and after having come back at about 05-00 PM, he went inside his house after standing the above motor cycle outside his house. The motor cycle was duly locked and when he came out of his house after 15/20 minutes, his bike was not standing there. He made thorough search of his motor cycle but it could not be traced and it was stolen by some unscrupulous person. Ultimately, the complainant reported the matter to the police on the same day. On which an FIR No. 426 dated 15-09-2012 under Section 379 IPC was registered by P.S. City, Yamuna Nagar. The complainant had also informed the OP No. 1 about the theft of his motor cycle with the immediate effect. It is further submitted that the stolen vehicle has not been traced out by the police. The complainant had already put the claim of his stolen motor cycle with the OP No. 1 vide application dated 26-10-2012 and completed all formalities. Untrace Report dated 22-04-2013 has also been submitted by the police before the Court of Sh. Rajesh Sharma, CJM, Jagadhri. But, the OPs have not adhered to sanction the claim of the complainant inspite of several visits and requests. The OPs are under a legal obligation to sanction claim of complainant as per the policy which practice of the OPs tantamount to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. As such, the complainant prayed that his complaint may kindly be accepted and OPs be directed to make the payment of full sum assured against the stolen motor cycle, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the monetary loss and mental and physical agony and torture and litigation expenses under the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.   

 3.               Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that as per pleadings of the complainant, the alleged theft took place on 11-09-2012 whereas he lodged FIR on 15-09-2012 and as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was bound to inform the insurance Co. within 48 hours of theft, whereas he informed the company on 26-10-2012. So, by not intimating the company in time, the right of investigation by the company stands hampered with. He further submitted that even otherwise the complainant put his motor cycle un-attended in the street without taking proper care and caution. Therefore, also the answering OP is not liable in any manner whatsoever. It is further submitted that the complainant has not supplied any documents to the OPs, so the OPs reserve their right to file better written statement as and when the copies of the said documents shall be supplied to the OPs. Rest of the submissions made by the complainant are wrong, hence denied. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                To prove his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence complainant’s affidavit as Annexure CA and documents such as photocopy of Ration Card as Annexure C-1, photocopy of FIR dated 15-09-2012 as Annexure C-2, photocopy of Registration certificate as Annexure C-3, photocopy of cover note as Annexure C-4, photocopy of driving licence as Annexure C-5, copy of untrace report as Annexure C-6 to C-8, copies of letter written to the OPs by the complainant as Annexure C-9 and C-10, copy of investigator report regarding keys of the stolen bike as Annexure C-11  and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ajay Sareen, Asstt. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ambala Cantt. as Annexure RA and documents such as photocopy of cover note as Annexure R1, photocopy of insurance policy as Annexure R-2, photocopy of FIR as Annexure R-3, photocopy of intimation letter as Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs. 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for opposite parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely & carefully. It is pertinent to mention here that this case was fixed for arguments on 14.08.2017 but 14.08.2017 was declared holiday on account Janamashtami and the file was taken up on 16.08.2017 for arguments but none appeared on behalf of the complainant and as such the case was adjourned to 17.8.2017  for arguments but again none appeared on behalf of the complainant and the case was further adjourned to 18.8.2017 for arguments but no one appeared on behalf of complainant, as such we have no option except to decide the case on the basis of documents placed on file as this case pertains to the year 2013.

 7.                It is admitted fact that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle in question and it was insured with the OPs for the period from 7.09.2012 to 06.09.2013.  According to the complaint, the incident of theft of the vehicle in question took place on 11-09-2012 and he lodged First Information Report on 15.09.2012. It is clear that the First Information Report was lodged after 4 days of theft. The complainant had informed the OP about theft on 26-10-2013 (Annexure C-9) after 45 days. The terms and conditions of the policy regarding intimation to the company as well as to the police are as under: -

          “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental 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 or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or 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 a 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. "

8.                 Counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the decision in Revision Petition No. 2661 of 2016 (NC), 2016 (4) CLT titled as Ramesh Kaushik vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & others, wherein it is held that Insurance claim-delay in intimation (12 days)-Held-that the intimation of theft was given after a delay of 12 days which amounts to violation of the terms of the contract Insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim-Revision Petition dismissed and in case titled as “Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jaina Construction Company & Others, 2016 (4) CPR 291 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-

           On reading of the above, it is clear that in the event of any theft or damage to the insured vehicle, it was contractual obligation of the insured complainant to immediately inform the opposite party-Insurance company. Admittedly, the complainant has violated the said condition by delaying the intimation of theft to the insurance company for about 45 days. Thus, in our considered view, the complainant has violated the above noted stipulation of the insurance contract.        

9.                In view of the aforesaid position in law, the complainant is not entitled for any relief in lieu of the present policy as we find that the complainant has nowhere explained the reasons for the delay in informing the OPs as well as to the police by giving a written notice regarding the theft of the vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

10.              In the light of aforesaid judgments, it becomes clear that on account of delay of about 45 days in intimation to Insurance Company regarding theft of insured vehicle and four days in lodging FIR, which is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

11.              In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the present complainant deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 18.08.2017

 

 

                                                          ( DHARAMPAL)

                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                          D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                          AT JAGADHRI

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                          MEMBER

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                         ( DHARAMPAL)

                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                          D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                          AT JAGADHRI