Jilay Singh vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1154 of 2012 - Jilay Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner ''s vehicle HR-38-J-4095 was insured by OP/respondent for a period of one year commencing from 24.1.2005 to 23.1.2006. On 9.5.2005, vehicle parked in front of the house of driver was stolen. FIR was lodged on 4.6.2005 and respondents were informed immediately regarding theft of the vehicle. Respondents repudiated claim alleging deficiency on the part of petitioner/complainant. Petitioner/complainant filed complaint before District forum. Respondents contested complaint and submitted that FIR was lodged at a very belated stage and OP was not informed about theft and prayed for dismissal of complaint. District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal field by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of intimation to respondents immediately after theft; learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and learned District Forum has committed error in dismissing complaint and claim should have been allowed on non-standard basis; hence, revision petition be admitted. Perusal of record clearly reveals that FIR was lodged on 4.6.2005, whereas vehicle was stolen on 9.5.2005, i.e. after a period of 25 days. Petitioner has not filed any document regarding intimation to Insurance Company/respondent immediately after theft of the vehicle. On the other hand, respondent has denied any intimation by complainant. In such circumstances, learned State Commission has not committed any error in upholding order of District Forum dismissing complaint. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC) - Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in which claim was directed to be settled on non-standard basis, as vehicle was used on hire, whereas insured for personal use. This citation does not help to the petitioner in this case, as petitioner has lodged FIR after 25 days and has not intimated to the Insurance Company; hence, violated basic conditions of the policy. He has also placed reliance on IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, which also does not help to the petitioner as in that case also vehicle was insured for personal use and was being used by the respondent as a taxi, whereas in the case in hand vehicle has been stolen and no intimation was given by the petitioner in time to the respondent.

IN I (2013) CPJ 713 (NC) - Suman Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. and in I (2013) CPJ 741 (NC) - Surender Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., I have decided that as per terms and conditions of the policy, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to intimate about theft to the OP immediately. In aforesaid both the cases, I have upheld order of State Commission dismissing complaint.

IN the light of aforesaid judgements, we do not find any illegality, irregularity of jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.