w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ram Avtar v/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.


    Revision Petition No. 2731 of 2017

    Decided On, 19 June 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. PREM NARAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. C. VISWANATH
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Sanchar Anand, Advocate. For the Respondent: Pramod K. Singh, Advocate.



Judgment Text


C. Viswanath, Member

1. The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.1017/2016 dated 01.06.2017.

2. The Complainant stated that he purchased a car Tata Indica Aura Quadra, with registration No. HR-20S-0773 for Rs.3,70,000/. He took an insurance policy with the Opposite Party for his car on 26.09.2011 valid upto 25.09.2012. On 28.01.2012, his car was stolen. He immediately informed the police and FIR No.113 was lodged on 05.02.2012. Thereafter he informed the Opposite Party/Insurance Company. As the Opposite Party, Insurance Company repudiated his claim, he filed a Complaint Case before the District Forum with the following prayer: -

“It is therefore prayed with this complaint that the complaint, of the applicant/consumer may kindly be accepted and a direction may kindly be issued to the respondent that the respondent to a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- insured amount alongwith interest of 24% annually and Rs.50,000/- as damage for mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief to which the applicant is found entitled may also be granted in his favour.”

3. In reply to the Complaint, the Opposite Party contended that, though the theft of the car took place on 28.01.2012, FIR was lodged only on 05.02.2012 i.e. 8 days after the car was stolen and the intimation of theft was given to the Insurance Company on 11.06.2012 i.e. after 4 months and 14 days. The Respondent/Opposite Party, therefore, repudiated his claim on 14.12.2012, on the ground that there was a delay of more than 4 months & 14 days in intimation of the loss. The District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the Complaint, vide order dated 20.07.2016 and directed as under: -

“Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to respondent to pay insured amount of Rs.3,70,000/- to complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 30.07.2013, till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- for his harassment, mental tension etc. This order be complied with by the respondent within 30 days, from the date of passing of this order.”

4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party/Insurance Company preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum, allowed the Appeal.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and carefully perused the record. The Petitioner/Complainant had taken insurance for his car Tata Indica Aura Quadra, with registration No. HR-20S-0773, vide policy No.25331031116100030248 dated 26.09.2011 for an amount of Rs.3,70,000/- valid upto 25.09.2012. On 02.08.2012 when the Petitioner went to attend a function and had parked his vehicle outside the venue, his vehicle was stolen. He lodged FIR with the police after about 8 days i.e. on 05.02.2012. The police submitted final report on 21.05.2012, declaring the vehicle untraceable. The Petitioner informed the Insurance Company about the theft on 11.06.2012 and raised his claim. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground of delay and violation of terms & condition No.1 of the insurance policy.

6. No evidence had been led by the Petitioner about informing the police immediately on the occurrence of the theft. FIR was lodged only on 05.12.2012 i.e. about 8 days after the theft had occurred. Had he lodged the complaint with the police immediately, the chances of tracing the vehicle would have been higher and the very fact that only after 8 days the police was informed raises some doubt, in the absence of adequate explanation for the delay in informing the police. The police submitted their final report on 21.05.2012 that the stolen vehicle could not be traced. Even then the Petitioner had not bothered to inform the Respondent/Insurance Company about the theft of his vehicle till 11.06.2012. He again waited for about 21 days to report the loss of the said vehicle. Again no explanation has been offered for the delay in informing the Insurance Company, even after the police had closed the case declaring the vehicle not traceable. As per the terms & conditions of the policy, the Petitioner/insured was to intimate the theft of the vehicle immediately without any loss of time. In the present case, the delay in intimating the police has not been sufficiently explained with eviden

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ce. There is an inordinate delay in intimating the Respondent/Insurance Company. No sufficient explanation has been given for the same. The State Commission had rightly allowed the Appeal of the Respondent and dismissed the Complaint. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission warranting interference under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
O R