State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Meera Devi W/O Lat. Shambhu Lal vs Tata Aig Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.Through ... on 23 February, 2017
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 698 /2016 Smt.Meera Devi w/o Late Shambhulal r/o village Kanarvas, Tehsil Bassi Distt. Jaipur. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Manager office- 104 Brij Anukampa, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Date of Order 23.2.2017 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member
Mr.Subhash Chand Sharma counsel for the appellant Mr. Vizzy Agarwal counsel for the respondent BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
2This appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.5.2016 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur 2nd whereby the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed.
The contention of the appellant is that theft has taken place on 22.7.2010. On the same day her son Chintu has informed the police but his claim has been rejected unnecessarily.
Per contra the contention of the respondent is that the insurance company was informed after 75 days and criminal complaint has been submitted before the competent court after 18 days i.e. on 9.8.2010. The keys of the vehicle was not submitted meaning thereby that they were left in ignition. Claim form was never submitted to them. Hence, claim has rightly been disallowed.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.
The facts are not in dispute that on 22.7.2010 the tractor was stolen for which criminal complaint was filed on 9.8.2010. It was submitted that on the same day Chintu has informed the 3 police but no documentary evidence has been submitted to prove this fact and further more Chintu has not been made available to the investigator. Inspite of reminders claim form and keys of the vehicle have not been submitted to the insurance company . Mr. Vikas Kumar investigator has specifically sworn so before the Forum below. Anx. R 3 clearly mentions that claim was reported after lapse of 75 days and on all the above grounds the claim was repudiated.
The respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3320/2014 Kulwant Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co., Revision Petition No. 3049/2014 HDFC Agro General Insurance Co. Vs. Bhagchand Saini, 2014 (1) CPR 224 (NC) Ramesh Chandra Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., 2013 (1) CPR 394 (NC) Kuldeep Singh Vs. IDCO Tokio General Insurance Co., Revision Petition No. 4176/2012 Prahalad Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC) Devendra Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. III (2012) CPJ 59 (NC) Omprakash Vs. National Insurance Co. Revision Petition No. 1362/2011 Ranglal (deceased) Vs. United India Insurance Co., First Appeal No. 321/2005 New India Assurance Co. Vs. Trilochan Jane, Revision Petition No. 3047/2011 United India 4 Insurance Co. Vs. Jogendra Singh, Revision Petition No. 4749/2013 Sriram General Insurance Co. Vs. Mahendra Jat, Revision Petition No. 3934/2012 Shakuntla Devi Vs. United India Insurance Co. and Revision Petition No. 1996/2012 Jagdish Prashad Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. where the constant view of the National Commission is that when police is informed with delay the Insurance Company is justified in repudiating the claim. The case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 204/2015 National Insurance Co. Vs. Kedar Kumar and Appeal No. 502/2013 Radhakishan Vs. New India Insurance Co. and Appeal No. 302/2013 Kasturi Vs. IFCO Tokio General Insurance Company.
The respondent has also relied upon the judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3182/2014 Arjunlal Jat Vs. HDFC Igro General insurance Company, Revision Petition No. 2652/2011 Delhi Dhulia Road Carriers Vs. United India Insurance Co., Revision Petition No. 3251/2013 Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Shyam Sunder, Revision Petition No. 4527/2014 Batta Valji Laxman Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. where keys were 5 left in the ignition and it was found that the insured did not take reasonable step to safeguard the vehicle. Here in the present case also the keys have not been submitted to the insurance company which gives presumption to the fact that the keys are not with the consumer and they were stolen alongwith the vehicle.
The respondent has also relied upon judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4290/2010 The CSC Headthe Iffco Tokio Vs. Gaurav Bhargava , Revision Petition No. 3049/2014 HDFC Egro General Insurance Co. Vs. Bhagchand Saini where the National Commission has held that as the respondent is a private player in the field the guidelines issued by the General Insurance Company are not applicable to them and claim could not be settled down on non-standard basis.
In view of the above there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be rejected.
(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta) Member President nm