RADHA MOHAN SHARMA S/O SHRI RAMSWAROOP SHARMA R/O GANDHI NAGAR, PORSA, DISTRICT MORENA (M.P.) Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THE BRANCH MANAGER, M.S. ROAD, MORENA (M.P.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petition no. 2885 of 2007 and 3069 of 2007 have been filed against the same impugned order dated 13.04.2007 of the Madhya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal ('the State Commission') Appeal no. 973 of 2005. Whereas the petitioner in RP No. 2885 of 2007, i.e., National Insurance Company Ltd., has prayed for setting aside the order dated 13.04.2007 passed by the State Commission, Bhopal, the respondent Radha Mohan Sharma who is the petitioner in RP no. 3069 of 2007 has prayed for interest of 12%. The facts of the case are taken from RP no.2885 of 2007.

(2.) The respondent/ complainant - Radha Mohan Sharma - got his jeep insured from the office of the insurance company on 09.07.2003 on cash payment of Rs.15,160/-. The said jeep was stolen between the night of 06.05.2004 and 07.05.2004 for which an FIR was lodged with the police station Porsa. The respondent immediately informed the petitioner telephonically about the said incident, despite the fact that the information of the incident was immediately given to the petitioner by the respondent Radha Mohan Sharma with copies of FIR. Registration Certificate, Insurance Claim Forms were supplied, the petitioner/ insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground of not giving the claim information immediately and for not getting an FIR registered until 09.07.2003. This was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The respondent/ Radha Mohan Sharma has prayed for allowing the relief to him.

(3.) The insurance company in their written statement before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Morena (MP) ('the District Forum') stated that the said jeep was got insured as per the terms of the policy of M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services on due payment of the amount of premium. The respondent/ Radha Mohan Sharma had not given any information on telephone regarding the theft of the said jeep. The information of the said incident was given on 14.06.2004 by the respondent which was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the terms of the policy, the respondent should have informed in writing without any delay regarding the said theft to the insurance company. The registration of the said vehicle had also not been done from the concerned RTO by the respondent and neither any information had been given to the insurance company regarding the same. Due to the said reason Radha Mohan Sharma was informed vide letter dated 25.06.2004 about the repudiation of his claim. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. Therefore, the insurance company has prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the above said grounds.