AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant, Shri Ravinder Singh alleged that he purchased a tractor financed by Punjab National Bank (opposite party No.2) on 07-11-2005. It was insured with the opposite party No.1, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for the value of Rs.4,35,000/- for the period from 18-11-2005 to 17-11-2006. On 16-11-2006 at about 10:00 P.M., the complainant parked the tractor and trolley in front of hotel for taking dinner. After the dinner he came to know that tractor and trolley were found missing. He immediately reported the matter to SHO, Police Station, Meham but no action was taken. He also met higher officers like the DSP, but no avail. Then he filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Meham and as per Magistrate order, FIR No.342 dated 12/12/2006 under Section 377 of IPC was registered. The police investigated the matter and submitted untraced report before the Court of SDJM, Meham on 04-10-2007. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 about the claim but vide letter dated 29-05-2009, it was informed that the case was not involved under its Scheme. Hence, the opposite party repudiated the claim.
Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bhiwani. The District Forum, Bhiwani after considering the pleading and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay 50% of insured amount alongwith 12% interest from the date of survey report i.e. 24-12-2007.
The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant.
Hence, this revision petition.
We have heard the arguments of the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner complainant vehemently argued that the tractor was stolen on 16-11-2006 while the insurance policy was subsisting upto 17-11-2006. It is pertinent to note that as per complainant the theft took place on 16-11-2006 but FIR was registered on 12-12-2006. The complainant made only oral submissions, not supported by any document. He had not explained the reasons for late intimation to the insurance company. As per the terms & conditions (No.1) of the insurance policy, it was to inform immediately to the insurance company. The relevant clause 1 is reproduced below: "Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter, claimed, writ, summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately, the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under the policy. In case of theft of criminal act, which may be the subject of a claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offence."
Thus, it was a substantial delay in filing the FIR and also giving intimation to OP. Our view dovetails from the judgment of this Commission in the case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tarlochan Jane, FA No.321 of 2005 decided on 09-12-2009 while dealing a similar case in which there was delay of 9 days in giving information to the insurance company. This Commission upheld the repudiation of the claim on the ground of delay.
It is pertinent to note that the petitioner/complainant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions between the parties inasmuch as immediate intimation of theft was not given to the respondent company or the police, thereby violating the terms of the policy. It is submitted that the intimation regarding the alleged theft was given to the police only after the lapse of more than 25 days and to the respondent/insurance company after one year and ten days.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the State Commission. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.