Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
*Dr. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ranjan Sharma (Judicial Member)
Mool Chand Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding theft and claim rejection. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant's arguments against the rejection. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's considerations on timely notification. (Para 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. legal standards for claim notifications. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final orders and consequences. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
1. The facts of the case necessary as per the District Forum record are:
“Mr. Sumit Sharma s/o Sh Moolchand Sharma, owner of Motor cycle, vide registration No. DL7SBP3774 had parked the vehicle outside of his office at Gaur City, Noida in the morning. When he came in the evening, found his motor cycle missing. After much tracing, he made 100 No. call to police at Noida, UP. The motor cycle was insured from Daryaganj Delhi from OP.
Son of complainant lodged FIR after two days and intimated OP after 09 days. He filed claim before OP after getting NO Trace report from UP Police. The claim was rejected by OP. There after complainant filed this complaint.â€
2. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 22.7.2016, whereby it held as under:
“It is clear that in event of loss of goods / vehicle, insur
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
