IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Repudiation of Claim - In the case in hand, there is no immediate compliance. Complainant has violated the terms and condition of the policy. The Insurance Company has right to repudiate his claim.
(2) Delay in Information - Merely because there is delay in giving information to the opponent, it is not desirable to repudiate the claim on the part of opponent because there was sufficient material available to the opponent Insurance Company to access the insurance claim of the complainant in respect of the vehicle in question.

ORDER

S.T. Barne, Judicial Member—The Appellant-Shriram General Insurance Company Limited has preferred this appeal against Judgement and Order dated 05/08/2017 passed by the Thane Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, CBD, Belapur, Mumbai in consumer complaint number 160/2015.

2. The Appellant-Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. is the opponent and respondent – Mr. Naresh Sharma is the original complainant in the consumer complaint before the District Forum. Parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the original complaint.

3. It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of vehicle number MH 04 FD 0818. He has purchased the said vehicle from Tata Motors. Said Vehicle is insured with the opponent Insurance Company for the period between 23/02/2012 to 22/02/2013.

4. On 24/02/2012 said vehicle met with an accident and accordingly the FIR came to be lodged bearing No.8/2012 with the Gaganbavda police station. The complainant has also informed about the accident to the opponent Insurance Company.

5. The opponent appointed Surveyor who has carried the survey and submitted his loss assessed survey report to the opponent Insurance Company. The opponent Insurance Company has compelled the complainant to take the vehicle to the garrage of M/s.Bargir Show Makers, near old Budhgaon Road, near Toll Naka, Sangli estimating total expenses of Rs.5,73,000/-. The complainant on completing all formalities submitted his claim to get the compensation towards the claim. The complainant requested the opponent to settle the claim earliest. Opponent neglected to settle the claim thereby caused financial loss to the complainant.

6. The complainant has also issued legal notice to the opponent dated 02/09/2013 calling upon the opponent to arrange payment of Rs.5,73,000/- together with interest of Rs.1,20,330/- and also claimed compensation of Rs.1 lakh. However, opponent failed to comply the notice. Therefore, the complainant has filed consumer complaint before the District Commission claiming compensation and costs of proceeding.

7. It reveals from the record that the opponent though gave appearance before District Forum failed to file written version. Hence, the complaint is proceeded without written version of opponent.

8. The District Forum pleased to allow the complaint thereby awarding amount of Rs.5,73,000/- to the complainant towards compensation against reimbursement of policy, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of proceeding. Being aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum the opponent Insurance Company has preferred present appeal on the following grounds—That the complaint is false and frivolous. The District Forum ought to have considered that the complainant has contravene in the standard terms and conditions of the policy issued by the opponent to the complainant. The contract between the parties is commercial one. On this ground also the District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint. The alleged incident took place on 24/02/2012 and thereafter the claim with the Insurance Company is lodged on 23/03/2012 after lapse of 28 days, which is against the terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant has not produced on record the reputation letter and suppressed the fact that the claim was not repudiated by the opponent. On this ground also the consumer complaint is vitiated. The District Forum has ignored the fact that the Surveyor has assessed the loss to Rs.3,10,921/- and ought to have allowed the complaint based on the estimate. The amount awarded is exceeded to ID value of the vehicle. The claim is not supported by any evidence. The District Forum has not considered the various Judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on which reliance is placed upon by the opponent during the hearing. Hence, the opponent Insurance Company has prayed for set