ABDUL REHMAN vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 12.06.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. 1403/2009, ''''Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Abdul Rehman '''' vide which, while accepting appeal, the order dated 11.08.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, allowing the consumer complaint No. 186/2007 was set aside and the said consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant got his vehicle Tata 1613 SE, bearing registration No. HR 55 B 8969, insured with the respondent/OP Insurance Company for the period from 14.06.2004 to 13.06.2005. it has been stated that the said vehicle got stolen on 09.06.2005 during the subsistence of the policy. An FIR No. 144 dated 8.11.2005 was lodged with the local police and an intimation was given to the Insurance Company also. However, when the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim, the consumer complaint in question was filed before the District Forum, requesting for payment of compensation/damages amounting to Rs. 8.25 lakh plus Rs. 15 lakh as compensation for mental harassment. The respondent/OP took the stand, however, that the said complaint was not maintainable as the FIR was got registered about five months after the date of alleged incident. Moreover, intimation about the theft was never given to the Insurance Company. The District Forum vide their order dated 11.08.2009 allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/OP to pay a sum of Rs. 8.5 lakh to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realisation. However, an appeal filed against this order before the State Commission was allowed vide impugned order dated 12.06.12, vide which the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. At the time of admission hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a copy of letter dated 09.06.2005 addressed to the local Station House Officer (SHO) of the Police Station, saying that intimation about the theft had been given immediately to the Police after the incident took place. However, the Police took an abnormal time of about 5 months in registering the FIR for which the petitioner/complainant could not be held liable. The learned counsel further stated that intimation about the alleged theft was orally given to the Insurance Company. The complainant approached the OP many times, but they intentionally harassed the complainant and did not satisfy his insurance claim.

AFTER the conclusion of the hearing, learned counsel of the petitioner submitted I.A. No. 1725/2014 in the office on 14.03.2014, enclosing therewith a letter dated 18.05.2007 for appointing the surveyor by the respondent, Insurance Company. It has been stated in the I.A. that a copy of the same had been served upon the Opposite Party.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. It has been clearly admitted by the petitioner during the course of arguments before us that written intimation about the alleged incident of theft was not given by the petitioner/complainant to the Insurance Company. It is clear, therefore, that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the State Commission rightly observed the same in the impugned order. Moreover, the FIR in question, has been registered after a period of five months after the alleged incident. A copy of the said FIR has been placed on record. It has been mentioned in the FIR that information was received in the Police Station on 08.11.2005 at 9:10 AM. On the copy of the application dated 09.06.2005 filed by the complainant, there is acknowledgement given by one Virender Kumar on behalf of the Police on 09.06.2005, but in the absence of any credible evidence, it cannot be believed that Police was informed immediately after the occurrence of alleged incident. The State Commission has rightly relied upon the orders passed by the National Commission in FA No. 321/2005 ''New India Assurance Company Limited versus Trilochan Jane '' decided on 09.12.2009, in which the matter was reported to the Police after 2 days and intimation was given to the Insurance Company after 9 days and this delay was found fatal to the case of the claimant. The learned State Commission has also placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in ''''Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another '''' [as reported in 2011 CTJ 11 (SC) (CP)] saying that the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy have to be strictly followed. Based on the discussion above, we do not find merit in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed at admission stage itself. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission. The said order is, therefore, upheld and the present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.