Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial), Anil Srivastava, Member
Shri Chand - Complainant
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. - Opposite Parties
Complaint No. 323 of 2012
Decided On : 08-12-2017
Consumer Protection Act - Insurance Claim - 1986 - Section 17, Section 21
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency of service by the National Insurance Company Ltd. and MAGMA Fincorp Ltd. The complaint pertained to the repudiation of an insurance claim for a vehicle that went missing and was later found to be stolen.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the repudiation of the claim on the ground of the vehicle being stolen from a location outside the permit jurisdiction was not sustainable. Additionally, the court held that the delay in intimating the theft did not justify the repudiation of the claim.
Issues: The key issues were whether the repudiation of the claim was legitimate based on the geographical area specified in the policy, and whether the delay in intimating the theft justified the repudiation of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the geographical area specified in the policy and the legal principle that delay in intimating a theft should not bar settlement of genuine claims if the reason for the delay is satisfactorily explained.
Final Decision: The court quashed the repudiation of the claim and allowed the complaint, directing the parties to bear the cost and carry out the directions within two months.
ORDER :
Anil Srivastava, Member
Shri Chand, resident of Sonepat, Haryana, for short complainant, has filed this complaint before this Commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (the Act) against the National Insurance Company Ltd. and MAGMA Fincorp Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OP-1 and OP-2 respectively, alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and praying for the relief as under:
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition be kindly allowed and an amount of Rs. 23,05,600 and interest wherever due be declared payable to the complainant by the OP-1 and it be directed to pay the amount as aforesaid to the complainant.
2. Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.
The complainant an ex-armyman retired from the Army in 2006, for the purpose of earning his livelihood, intended to purchase a JCB vehicle for deploying it in some construction related job, contacted OP-2 and finally purchased a vehicle/construction equipment make “Backhoe Loader JCB India Ltd. 3DX” engine number 4H2295/1023004, chassis No. 1387456 bearing registration No. HR 69A 3912 on hire purchase basis . The OP-2 financed purchase of the vehicle and for this purpose the complainant signed a few documents.
The said vehicle/construction equipment was insured through OP-1 for a total sum of Rs. 20,56,000 and the entire premium amount was paid to the OP-1 by the complainant through OP-2. That the said vehicle was insured vide policy No. 150100/31/09/6700042199 and under special contingency policy vide policy No. 9500008048 for a period commencing from 00:00 hours on 12.0.10 till midnight of 11.3.11.
3. Thereafter the complainant deployed the said vehicle with one DSC Ltd. on contractual basis for construction related work at U.D. Link Road project under the supervision of AGM Shri Tabib. During the said engagement the vehicle went missing from the site on 26.9.2010. Consequently the complaint was made before SHO, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi complaint was ultimately culminated into an FIR No. 499/10 under Section 379 of IPC. On 14.10.2010 the complainant intimated about the loss of the vehicle to the OP-1 also.
4. The Police Authorities filed an untraced report on 8.11.2010. (Annexure E). The complainant after receipt of the untraced report from the Police Authorities preferred a claim with the Insurance Company, submitting the required and necessary documents. The claim was not approved despite the fact that he made all possible efforts and met many officers to furnish clarification as called for. Legal notice sent to the Insurance Company demanding the release of the amount as admissible could evoke no response.
5. Consequently a complaint was filed before this Commission for the redressal of his grievances. The complaint stated to have been filed under Section 21 of the Act is actually under Section 17 as Section 21 lay down the provision for filing of the complaint before the Hon’ble NCDRC.
6. The OPs were noticed and both the OPs have filed their separate reply. OP-1 averred that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands inasmuch as he has suppressed and hidden material particulars pertaining to the instant matter. The complainant has suppressed the fact that the claim of the complainant was repudiated through letter dated 11.12.2012 Stating that the vehicle is registered in Haryana and the permit is granted only for use in the state of Haryana and since the theft occurred from New Delhi, which is outside the jurisdiction of the permit granted for the vehicle the insurance claim has been repudiated.
7. The OP-2 in their written statement have also averred that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. They have also denied any deficiency of service or their part. The complainant and the OP-1 have also filed their evidence
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
