JOGINDER SINGH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the Fora below, i.e., order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra and thereafter order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in appeal No. 1662/2011, the original complainant has approached this Commission by filing petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum have dismissed the complaint and uphold the repudiation of the insurance claim in respect of a motor vehicle bearing registration No. HR-56-3584, which was stolen from Azadpur area in Delhi. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner affirming the order passed by the District Forum based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Hachand Rai Chandan Lal, 2004 8 JT 8, and decision of this Commission in First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 titled NIA v. Trilochan Jane,2012 4 CPJ 441 .

(2.) Limited notice was issued to the respondent Insurance Company as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the insurance claim of the petitioner/complainant would be settled on 'non-standard' basis going by the guidelines issued by GIC.

(3.) We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have considered their respective submissions. Insurance claim lodged by the petitioner/complainant was repudiated on the ground of violation of two conditions of the policy--one relatable to Clause 1 of the insurance policy casting an obligation on the insured to intimate the insurer immediately in case of any theft or damage of the insured vehicle and the other was about the breach of the statutory provisions of Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, i.e., the petitioner was not having any permit for the vehicle to travel into the territory of NCT of Delhi. Going by the nature and extent, the District Forum has taken pains to examine the matter in great detail and going by the legal position established by the Supreme Court and this Commission held that the repudiation of the claim was justified and the complainant was not entitled to the claim.