//
you're reading...
legal issues

The State Commission vide the order impugned has passed a detailed order accepting the plea of the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company that the story of theft of the vehicle was shrouded with doubt as the petitioner/complainant had failed to lodge a complaint with the police authorities immediately after the theft and has taken more than 2 months 11 days to register an FIR. Similarly, information with regard to the theft was not given to the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company and the claim was filed belatedly in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The State Commission relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal [(2004) 8 SCC 644] and Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. [2011 CTJ 11 (SC) (CP)] has held that the petitioner/complainant had grossly violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in dealing with the matter, in lodging the FIR as well as giving information to the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company and, therefore, was not entitled to any compensation as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy have to be construed strictly as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Indian insurance revenue stamps.

Indian insurance revenue stamps. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

NEW DELHI

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 3900 OF 2011

[Against the order dated 20.07.2011 in FA No. 1612 & 2049 of 2008 of the

Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula]

 

Rajesh Kumar

S/o Shri Jaswant Singh

R/o Village Mandothi

Tehsil Bahadurgarh

District Jhajjar                                                       …      Petitioner

Versus

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Branch Office 323401-122-123

Model Basti, Behind Filmistan Cinema

New Delhi-110005                                                 …      Respondent

Before :

 

          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

          HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBERS

For the Petitioner                      :         Mr. Yashpal Rangi, Advocate

Pronounced on :  23rd March, 2012

 

O R D E R

 

PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

 

1.       Rajesh Kumar, the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (District Forum for short), has filed this revision petition assailing the order dated 20th of July, 2011 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Panchkula (State Commission for short), vide which the State Commission while upsetting the order of the District Forum has dismissed his complaint.

2.       Facts in brief are that the insured truck of the petitioner/complainant during the period of validity of the insurance was stolen on 20th of October, 2004, for which FIR NO. 1239 was lodged with the Police Station Nangloi, Delhi on 21st of December, 2004.  A claim was also filed with the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company, which, however, was repudiated as ‘no claim’ vide their letter dated 23rd of May, 2006.

3.       Aggrieved with the repudiation of his claim complaint was filed before the District Forum, who, on contest, accepted the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company to pay the sum for which the vehicle was insured under the policy along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

4.       Both sides filed appeal before the State Commission; the petitioner/complainant seeking in addition grant of compensation, interest @ 18% per annum and the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company praying for the setting aside of the order so passed by the District Forum.  The State Commission vide the order impugned has passed a detailed order accepting the plea of the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company that the story of theft of the vehicle was shrouded with doubt as the petitioner/complainant had failed to lodge a complaint with the police authorities immediately after the theft and has taken more than 2 months 11 days to register an FIR.  Similarly, information with regard to the theft was not given to the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company and the claim was filed belatedly in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The State Commission relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Harchand RaiChandan Lal [(2004) 8 SCC 644] and Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. [2011 CTJ 11 (SC) (CP)] has held that the petitioner/complainant had grossly violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in dealing with the matter, in lodging the FIR as well as giving information to the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company and, therefore, was not entitled to any compensation as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy have to be construed strictly as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5.       Before us, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to advance any argument to pick holes in the finding of the State Commission, except to plead that the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company ought not to have repudiated the claim on the technical ground of delay or else the public at large will lose their faith in the insurance companies.  Lodging of an FIR in the case of a theft should be an immediate concern for any owner of a vehicle and under the terms of the policy he is required to inform the insurance company and file the claim at the earliest.  On both these counts, there are no plausible explanations and, therefore, the State Commission has rightly held it against the petitioner/complainant.

6.       On the facts and circumstances as available on record, we do not find that the State Commission has committed any illegality, material irregularity or has exceeded its jurisdiction.  The revision petition, accordingly, is dismissed at the stage of admission itself with no order as to cost.

 

Sd/-

( R. C. JAIN, J. )

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

     (S.K. NAIK)

(MEMBER)

Mukesh

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,343 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: