VIRENDER KUMAR Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 02.3.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 24 of 2011, Virender Kumar, the original complainant in the complaint before the District Forum has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act'). The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 03.12.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak, by which order the said District Forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant with the direction to the Insurance Company to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. to pay Rs. 5,17,750/- only along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint till its realization and a sum of Rs. 2,250/- as litigation charges with the stipulation that the amount shall be paid within one month from the date of decision, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 03.01.2011 onwards till its realization. In appeal, the State Commission has reversed the said finding and order of the District Forum and has in turn dismissed the complaint, primarily on the ground that the complainant had committed breach of Clause-1 of the terms and conditions of the policy, which inter-alia enjoined upon the complainant / insured to give in writing immediate intimation about the loss or damage caused to the insured vehicle on account of theft or accident, which breach disentitled the complainant to seek indemnification of the loss caused to the complainant on account of theft of his insured vehicle, his Eicher Canter bearing registration No. HR-46B-4468.

(2.) The facts and circumstances, which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end. The insurance claim lodged by the complainant in regard to the theft of his insured vehicle No. HR-46B-4468 was repudiated by the insurance company, primarily on the ground that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy, inasmuch as although, the vehicle was allegedly stolen on 25.7.2006 but FIR was lodged on 05.8.2006 and the insurance company was informed about the theft of the vehicle only on 10.8.2006. The complaint was also resisted by the insurance company on the same ground on which the claim was earlier repudiated.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Arvind Garg, Advocate learned counsel representing the petitioner-complainant and have considered his submissions. He tried to assail the impugned order mainly on the ground that the view taken by the State Commission is erroneous and has resulted into great hardship to the petitioner-complainant inasmuch as he has been non-suited on the ground that undue delay was occasioned in lodging the FIR and giving intimation about the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company. As regards the delay in lodging the FIR with the concerned police station, the learned counsel has invited our attention to a GD report dated 25.7.2006 purportedly lodged by the complainant with the police post incharge, PGIMS, Rohtak in regard to the theft of his vehicle. He submits that after the complainant has made the said report to the police, it was for the police to have recorded the FIR immediately, which the concerned police authorities delayed and registered the FIR only on 05.8.2006 for which delay the petitioner cannot be held responsible. In regard to the delay in giving the intimation about the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company, he submitted that the intimation was given to the concerned officer of the insurance company verbally on the date of the theft of the vehicle but the said officer declined to take notice of such intimation and advised the complainant-petitioner to give intimation in writing along with the copy of the FIR. That copy of the FIR was made available to the complainant only on 05.8.2006 and thereafter, the complainant gave the intimation to the concerned officer of the insurance company along with the copy of the FIR. He strongly contended that in the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner-complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.