JAGJIT SINGH V.P.O. JAKHAULI SONEPAT HARYANA Vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL LTD. & ANR. REGIONAL OFFICE, SCO 2463/2464, SECTOR 22

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 25.10.2010, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 346/2009, M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Singh, vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh on 04.05.2009 in Consumer Complaint No. 1381/2008, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside and the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner Jagjit Singh, was the owner of a Hyundai Accent (Viva) car with registration no. HR10H 0880, which was insured with the opposite party (OP) Insurance Company for the period 31.08.2005 to 30.08.2006. The said car was stolen on the intervening night of 23/24.08.2008, when it was parked at the residence of a friend of the complainant, who was using the car at that time. An FIR No. 690/2006, dated 25.08.2006 was registered with the police station Prashant Vihar, New Delhi and the Insurance Company was also intimated through written request on 26.08.2006. A claim was filed with the Insurance Company in Oct., 2006, but the same was denied vide letter dated 31.10.2006 on the ground that information about the incident was given to them on 009.2006 i.e. after about one week of the occurrence. The matter was then taken up with Insurance Ombudsman, who vide his order dated 08.01.2008, directed the Insurance Company to pay at least 50% of the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle by 31.01.2008. However, on the failure of the Insurance Company to pay even that much amount, the consumer complaint was filed, seeking directions to the Insurance Company to make payment of Rs. 6.37 lakhs i.e. the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the claim till realisation and also to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and Rs. 1,000.00 as litigation expenses.

(3.) The OP Insurance Company took the stand in their written reply before the District Forum that they came to know about the alleged theft on 02.09.2006, which was at a belated stage by ten days and hence, the claimant could not be given any relief. Regarding the order of the Insurance Ombudsman, the Insurance Company stated that they had sent letters to the insured to submit the documents, required for settlement of claim and also to give his consent for the same, but the same was not done by the insured.