Punjab

Sangrur

CC/355/2017

Prince Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rohit Jain

09 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 355                                                                                         

                                                                       Instituted on:  25.07.2017                                                                                   

                                                                    Decided on:    09.11.2017

Prince Kumar son of Ram Lal resident of House No.219, Street No.2, Ram Mandir, Kasaia Wala Mohalla, Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager,  Malerkotla Byepass Road, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

 

                                                  ….Opposite party.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY     :       Shri Ashish Garg, Advocate.

 

Quorum

                            

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg,  Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

                 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Prince Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he  got insured his motorcycle Splendor Plus bearing registration number PB-13AH-1148 from the OP from 21.09.2016 to 20.09.2017 by paying premium amount of Rs.1162/-  and IDV of the motorcycle was Rs.27000/-.  On 14.11.2016  he parked  said motorcycle outside Chief Footwear Sangrur and when  he came back fount that motorcycle was missing. The complainant tried his best to find out said motorcycle   and after five days the complainant again approached  police Station City Sangrur alongwith his  friend  and requested them to lodge his complaint but they again put the matter on one pretext or the other and  lastly on 10.12.2016 when the complainant approached the police station for lodging complaint regarding theft of his motorcycle then complaint was lodged  in the name Chetan Sharma son of Raj Kumar Sharma resident of Gali No.6 Thalesh Bagh Colony Sangrur. The complainant lodged the claim of theft of his motorcycle with the OP and OP vide its letter dated 16.05.2017 repudiated the claim on the ground that FIR has been lodged with a delay and intimation  to the OPs has not been given within time which is false and against the law.    Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OP be directed to pay Rs.27000/- along with  interest @24% per annum from 14.11.2016,

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- on  account of mental torture, agony and inconvenience and Rs. 11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, it is stated that as per version of FIR no.405 dated 10.12.2016  one Chetan Sharma made statement regarding theft of his motorcycle bearing registration number PB-13AA-6263 and he had also stated that motorcycle of one Prince Kumar was also stolen on 14.11.2016 opposite cheap Footwear Sangrur. Further,  the complainant mentioned in the intimation letter dated 18.02.2017  that on 14.11.2016 his motor cycle was stolen near chef Hotel Sangrur. So, the version of the complainant  is contradictory in intimation letter and in the FIR. The insured  informed the loss to the OP on 18.02.2017  i.e. after a gap of 96 days  though the vehicle was reported stolen on 14.11.2016 and FIR was also lodged  after 26 days of theft.  The insured has breached the mandatory terms and condition no.1 of the policy. The company  legally and  rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant  and informed him vide letter dated 16.05.2017. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that  insured informed the loss to the OP on 18.02.2017 i.e. after a gap of 96 days though the vehicle was reported stolen on 14.11.2016 and FIR was also lodged after 26 days of theft. The OP has further asserted that  as per version of the FIR No.405  dated 10.12.2016  one Chetan Sharma made statement regarding theft of his motorcycle bearing registration number PB-13AA-6263 and he had also stated that motorcycle of one Prince Kumar was also stolen on 14.11.2016 opposite cheap Footwear Sangrur. Further,  the complainant mentioned in the intimation letter dated 18.02.2017  that on 14.11.2016 his motor cycle was stolen near chef Hotel Sangrur. So, the version of the complainant  is contradictory in intimation letter and in the FIR.

5.             The complainant himself has produced on the file copy of FIR  number 405 dated 10.12.2016 Ex.C-2 which was lodged by one Mr. Chetan Sharma son of Shri Raj Kumar resident of  Thalesh Bagh Colony Sangrur  and not by Mr. Prince Kumar complainant. Moreover, the said FIR was got registered on 10.12.2016 regarding theft of motorcycle  bearing registration number PB  13AA 6263 of Mr. Chetan Sharma whereas the  registration number of motorcycle of the complainant is PB-13AH-1148. From the perusal of the said FIR we find  a reference of theft of complainant's motorcycle was also made in the said FIR. We have also perused the intimation letter Ex.Op-2 and found that intimation to the OP regarding theft of his motorcycle was given by the complainant on 18.02.2017 whereas theft was took place on 14.11.2016 as alleged by the complainant in his complaint which is after a long period of 96 days but surprisingly the complainant has not explained regarding such a long delay in intimation regarding theft of his motorcycle to the OP.

6.             In support of his case , the complainant has produced judgment of the Hon'ble State Commission titled as National Insurance Company and another Vs. Hardeep Singh  wherein the Hon'ble State Commission has held "  it becomes very much apparent from this letter that the OPs never  intended, nor repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there was delay in giving information to them or to the police" . But, in the instant case, the OP had repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of  delay intimation of 96 days regarding  stolen of said motorcycle. The OP has also cited a ruling namely Kotak Mahindra Prima Limited Vs. Rajaram & others,  II (2017) CPJ 210 ( NC) wherein it has been held that delay  of more than two months in reporting theft of insurer was not explained  either by complainant or by petitioner and insured committed breach of a mandatory  term of insurance policy by not giving immediate intimation of theft to insurer. In the present case, the complainant has also totally failed to explain the delay in intimation of theft of his motorcycle to the OP rather he has not lodged any FIR regarding theft of his motorcycle. Merely a reference of theft of   his motorcycle in the FIR number 405 dated 10.12.2016 lodged by one Mr. Chetan Sharma cannot be said to be an intimation by the complainant to the police.

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant.   A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Announced

                November 9, 2017

 

 

 

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Sarita Garg)  ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Member                    Member                        President