STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Admission : 05.01.2022 Date of Final Hearing : 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 SC/5/A/370/2019 Sh. Akshay Kumar S/o Sh. Nathiram R/o Gaadowali Post Jat Bahadarpur, Jwalapur, District Haridwar (Through: Sh. K.P. Singh, Advocate)

…..Appellant VERSUS

1. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Office 16B Linton Road, Dehradun

2. Regional Manager, Regional Office, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

NCR Plaza, Third Floor, New Cantt. Road, Dehradun (Through: Sh. Suresh Gautam, Advocate)

…..Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 86 of 2016 styled as Sh. Akshay vs. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., wherein and whereby the complaint was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant obtained an insurance policy No. 253204/31/2014/7379 for his registered vehicle bearing registration No. UK08-AE-3601 from the opposite party No. 1 – Insurance Company after paying premium of Rs. 22,325/- on dated 15.11.2013, which was valid from 15.11.2013 to 14.11.2014. On dated 05.05.2014, the above insured vehicle was stolen by unknown person in Ghaziabad for which a FIR bearing crime No. 269/2014 under Section 379 IPC was registered and during investigation, the police could not search the insured vehicle as well as the accused. Thereafter, the Investigation Officer submitted the final report before the concerned Court, which was accepted. The complainant submitted all the documents regarding theft including FIR and Final Report to the Insurance Company and also submitted his claim. However, despite intimation the insurance company has failed to take any action and the insurance claim was not paid to the complainant. The complainant requested several times to the opposite party No. 2 to pay the claim amount, but his request was denied. The complainant also sent a registered notice 07.03.2016 to the opposite parties, but inspite of receiving the notice, neither the claim was given, nor reply was given. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file complaint before the District Commission seeking grant of the insurance claim of Rs. 6,96,350/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- towards mental loss.

3. The opposite parties submitted their written statement stating that there exist no cause of action against the answering opposite parties, as such the complaint is not legally maintainable. It is further stated that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus as per policy condition, no claim is admissible in case of theft where the same is not reported to the insurance company within 48 hrs. of its occurrence. It is evident that the vehicle was stolen on dated 05.05.2014 and the company was intimated on dated 16.10.2014, which is clear violation of the terms and conditions. Therefore, the claim is not maintainable. Further it is stated in the written statement that during investigation, it was found that the vehicle was sold to Sh. Neeraj Kumar and it was under possession of Sh. Neeraj Kumar, which is clear from the FIR lodged by Sh. Neeraj Kumar in the police station, as such the claim of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further stated that the complainant is the guilty of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts and was aware that he has sold the vehicle prior to the incident. Therefore, there exists no deficiency on the part of the answering opposite parties whereas the complainant has not come with clean hands b