SIDDHANTH YADAV Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition no. 1782 of 2015 has been filed against the order dated 06.04.2015 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal ('the State Commission') in Appeal no. 140 of 2015.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner's Bolero vehicle no. MP 17 CA 1324 was registered with the respondent/ insurance company vide policy number 152702/31/2013/73 from 06.04.2012 to 05.04.2013. The said vehicle was parked in the front office of the Larsen and Turbo Company Ltd., house no. 158/1 Tagore House, Allahabad on 17.10.2012, from where it was stolen in the night. Information regarding the theft of the vehicle was given by the son of the petitioner Mr Munish Kumar on 18.10.2012 to the police station Georgetown Allahabad and crime number 314/12 under section 379 IPC was registered with the police station. On 01.11.2012, the petitioner gave the information regarding the theft of the vehicle to the respondent office, about the vehicle not being traced and a final report was submitted before the CJM Allahabad. In spite of registration of the claim by the respondent and assurance of immediate payment of compensation amount, instead of paying the claimed amount the respondent insurance company rejected the payment of the claimed amount on 12.08.2013, due to which the petitioner suffered damage of Rs.1,50,000/- and has also undergone mental harassment. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for compensation of Rs.4,75,000/-.

(3.) The respondent/ opposite party insurance company in their reply before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa District, Madhya Pradesh ('the District Forum') admitted that the petitioner's vehicle in question was insured with the respondent insurance company during the said period and the registration of the claim on 01.11.2012 on the information given by the petitioner about the theft of the insured vehicle on 18.10.2012. The respondent by rejecting the other facts has submitted that the petitioner did not give immediate information of theft of the vehicle to the insurance company whereas the information should have been given immediately after the theft or within 48 hours. The information regarding the theft of the vehicle was being given to the insurance company by the petitioner after 10-15 days, is in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The petitioner has not produced the documents sought by them due to which there was no liability of the insurance company and the respondent has not committed any deficiency in service. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled for any relief. Thus, the respondent insurance company has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.