SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Suresh Chandra, Member
Hukam Singh & Anr. —Petitioners
versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Branch Manager —Respondent
Revision Petition No.4028 of 2012
(From the order dated 16.7.2012 in Appeal No.1191/2011of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)
Decided on 22.11.2013

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Devendra Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Intimation given to financing Bank cannot be a substitute to intimation required to be given immediately to insurance company.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Theft of Tractor—Insurance claim repudiated on ground that there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy inasmuch as theft was not intimated to insurance company immediately but after five months—Complaint dismissed by State Commission in appeal— Intimation given to financing Bank cannot be a substitute to intimation required to be given immediately to insurance company—Purpose of such intimation of theft to insurance company is to enable insurance company to take steps to protect their interest by appointing investigators to trace vehicle—Petitioners have failed to protect interest of insured by failing to immediately informing report of theft in terms of general condition of insurance policy—State Commission rightly dismissed complaint—Revision Petition dismissed. (Paras 7 to 9)

ORDER

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula dated 16.7.2012 whereby the State Commission accepted the appeal against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Faridabad and dismissed the complaint.

2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioners filed a consumer complaint in District Forum, Faridabad claiming that they had purchased a tractor after taking loan from Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Sikrona Branch, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. The tractor was insured with the respondent- opposite party for the period from 16.2.2007 to 15.2.2008. The tractor was stolen on 7th September, 2007 regarding which FIR No.278 dated 8.9.2007 was lodged with the police station Sadar, District Palwal. It is claimed by the petitioners that intimation of theft was also given to the Gramin Bank, Sikrona Branch, Ballabhgarh. The insurance claim submitted by the petitioners was repudiated vide letter dated 30th March, 2009 on the ground that there was a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy inasmuch as that the theft was not intimated to the insurance company immediately but after five months in the month of February, 2008. Claiming this to be deficiency in service the petitioners filed the consumer complaint.

3. Respondent- Opposite Party contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein he justified the repudiation of claim in view of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

4. District Forum, Faridabad on appraisal of pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced allowed the complaint and directed the respondent- opposite party to indemnify the complainants as under: -

“Accordingly, OPs are directed to reimburse the complainant with the insured amount of Rs.(sic) on account of (sic) within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this complaint failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. instead of 6%.”

5. Feeling aggrieved of by the order of the District Forum, respondent- opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Haryana and the State Commission after due notice to the petitioner and hearing the parties accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint with following observations: -

“The core question for consideration before us is whether the delay w.e.f. 7.9.2007 till February, 2008 in giving information to the Insurance Company with respect to the theft of insured tractor, is fatal to the claim preferred by the complainant.

During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party has argued that as the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy in giving information to the Insurance Company after a gap of more than five months, he is not entitled to claim any compensation. In support of her argument learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards “General Conditions” wherein Claim Procedure has been given as under:-

“5. Claim Procedure:-

i) The insured shall upon the occurrence of any event giving rise or likely to give rise to a claim under this policy.

a) In the event of theft loge forthwith a complaint with the police and take all particulars steps to apprehend the guilty person or persons and to recover the property lost.

b) Give immediate notice thereof to the company and shall within fourteen (14) days thereafter furnish to the company at his own expenses detailed particulars of the amount of the loss or damage together with such explanation and evidence to substantiate the claim as the company may reasonable required.”

Further reference has been made to the judgment delivered by the National Commission in case cited as Devendra Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.1, wherein there was a delay of one month in giving information to th













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top