IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 04.09.2018 Date of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date of Decision: 14.01.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 397/2024 IN THE MATTER OF ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH MR. S. S. SELAL, (REGIONAL MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER), HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT:

RO-1, 10^TH FLOOR, HANSALAYA BUILDING, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.

(Through: Mr. Apoorv Sarvaria, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. MR. JAI PRAKASH, R/O C-2/1061, SEC. 27, RESETTLEMENT COLONY, VILLAGE KHERA KALAN, DELHI-110036.

(Through: Mr. Aakash Gupta, Advocate)

2. TATA MOTOR FINANCE LTD., KANCHAN JUNGA BUILDING.

BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001.

(Through: Bajaj & Bajaj Associates)

…Respondents CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)

Present: Mr. Apoorv Sarvaria, counsel for the Appellant.

Proxy counsel for Ms. Shailaja Chauhan, counsel for the Respondent no. 2.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“1. …the complainant is owner of vehicle bearing No.

DL01LR-3394 duly Insured with OP-1 for a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- as an IDV for the period of one year w.e.f. 16.01.2013 to 15.01.2014 vide policy bearing No.215500/31/2013/7199. The OP charged a sum of Rs.20,261/- as a when he came back in the morning he found that his vehicle was stolen. It is further alleged that the complainant immediately informed the police about incident as well as to the OP Insurance Co. It is alleged by the complainant that claim form and all the documents were submitted to the OP for settling the claim but the OP Insurance Co repudiated his claim on false and frivolous ground, hence this complaint.

2. Complaint has been contested by both the OPs. OP-1 has filed its written statement denied any deficiency in services on its part and stated that the alleged theft took place on the midnight of 15/16.01.2013 and the Intimation of the same was given to OP Insurance Co. after a delay of 05 days which is the clear violation of condition No.1 of the policy terms and conditions, according to which the insured has to inform the Insurance Co. about the loss/theft immediately after the incident.

3. OP-2 has also filed its written statement and stated that being the lender it has every right to recover its dues and is entitled to receive the Insurance Claim if the complaint is allowed. It is further stated on behalf of OP-2 that since no relief has been sought against it, hence, there is no need to file any reply on merits and further prayed that OP-1 be directed to pay the Insurance amount in its favour.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 07.06.2018, whereby it held as under:

“6. It is argued on behalf of OP-1 that the alleged theft took place on the midnight of 15/16.01.2013, intimation of the same was given to the OP Insurance Co. after a delay of 05 days which is the clear violation of condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the policy according to which the insured has to inform the Insurance Co. about the loss/theft immediately after the incidence and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. It is argued on behalf of OP-2 that being the Lender it has every right to recover its due and is entitled to receive the Insurance Claim if the complaint is allowed. It is further stated on behalf of OP-2 that since no relief has been sought against it, hence, there is no need to file any reply on merits and further prayed that OP-1 be directed to pay the Insurance amount in its favour.

7. It is argued on behalf of complainant that on

16.01.2013, the intimation was given to the official of OP Insurance Co. about the theft telephonically, who asked the complainant to lodge the claim after receiving the untraced report from the concerned Court, hence, there is no delay on the part of the complainant a