- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
DHARAMBIR v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1542 OF 2012
(Against the Order dated 21/12/2011 in Appeal No. 308/2010 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. DHARAMBIR
S/o Sh Ram Chander R/o Rainak Pura Rohtak
Haryana ...........Petitioner(s) Versus
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Oriental House A-25/27 Asaf ALi Road,New Delhi, Througfh its Divisional Manager Opp D.Park Delhi Road Rohtak
Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. J. B. Mudgil, Advocate with Mr. D. C. Ahlawat, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja, Advocate Dated : 10 Oct 2013
ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard.
2. Shri Dharambir, petitioner/complainant was the owner of a truck. Shri Jatinder was the driver of the complainant and Shri Krishan was the cleaner. They loaded the vehicle from Sawaha (Rajasthan). The truck arrived at Patna on 27.8.2006. Thereafter the driver and cleaner could not be traced. It was reported that both of them were murdered. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the truck was stolen by some unknown person. However, the report was lodged on 2.11.2006. The intimation regarding the theft of the truck was given to the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., opposite party, on 6.11.2006. No claim was filed with the opposite party. Shri Dharambir filed a complaint directly before
1
the District Forum. Strangely, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay the IDV of the value at Rs.9,25,000/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint and imposed litigation expenses in the sum of Rs.2,000/-.
3. Aggrieved by that order, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission placed reliance on the judgment of this Commission in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Trilochan Jane, first appeal No. 321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009, accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the judgment passed by the District Forum where it is stated that as per the letter Ex. P7, the intimation report was sent to the opposite party vide letter dated 6.11.2006. Despite this fact, it must be borne in mind that there was a delay of 71 days in sending the intimation to the insurance company. It is also admitted fact that FIR was lodged after about 67 days of the alleged theft. This must be borne in mind that delay in lodging the FIR and delay in intimating the insurance company is fatal as it deprived the insurance company of its legitimate right to enquire into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 decided on 17.8.2010 dismissed the complaint holding that in terms of the policy issued by the insurance company, the insured was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. It was further held that the insurance company could not be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the insured
2
despite the fact that he has not complied with the terms of the policy. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court read as under.
"Admittedly the respondent had not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Shri Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was -5-
duty bound to inform the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the consumer foras omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy."
8. Similar view was taken by this Commission in Rahul Tanwar vs. Oriental Insurance
3
Company Ltd., revision petition No. 2951 of 2011 decided on 9.11.2012.
9. The revision petition being without merit is dismissed.
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER
4
Alert