Rahul Tanwar R/O Tosham Bye Pass Road vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.2.2011 passed by the learned Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in F.A. No.648/2009 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rahul Tanwar by which while

accepting appeal order of learned District Forum was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant''s Motor cycle bearing No. HR 16 D 7296 was insured by Opposite party -respondent for the

period from 20.10.2004 to 19.10.2005. On 13.2.2005, complainant/petitioner''s Motor cycle was stolen and FIR was lodged on 18.1.2005.

Opposite party was also informed regarding theft of the Motor cycle and claim was submitted, but as the claim was repudiated, complainant filed

complaint. Opposite party submitted reply and alleged that FIR was lodged after 6 days and as complainant did not submit documents within time,

claim was repudiated. Learned District Forum after recording evidence and hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party

to pay Rs.36,000/ - along with interest and Rs.2200/ - as litigation charges. Appeal filed by the opposite party was allowed by the State

Commission against which this petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that opposite party was informed about theft immediately, but FIR could be lodged with the Police

Station after 5 days and in such circumstances, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint, hence, petition may be

allowed and order of District Forum may be restored. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that learned State

Commission has not committed any error in dismissing complaint as complainant failed to inform to the opposite party immediately after theft.

IT is admitted fact that complainant lodged FIR on 18.1.2005 whereas Motor cycle was stolen on 13.1.2005. As far information to the

opposite party is concerned, complainant has simply stated in his complaint that opposite party was informed regarding theft of the Motor cycle

and complainant visited office of the opposite party many times regarding claim. Complainant has not mentioned any specific date on which

information was given to the opposite party. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not show any letter written to opposite party depicting

information regarding theft of Motor cycle. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that complainant informed opposite party regarding theft of

motor cycle immediately or even before lodging FIR in the Police station. Learned State Commission has rightly dismissed complaint as

complainant failed to inform the opposite party well in time, hence, there was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, 2008 11 SCC 259 in which it was

held that where insured vehicle has been stolen, claim cannot be repudiated by Insurance Company on the ground that at the time of theft vehicle

was used as a taxi whereas vehicle was insured as private vehicle. This citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case

because as per terms and conditions of the policy, it was obligatory on the part of complainant to intimate opposite party regarding theft of vehicle

immediately and as complainant failed to inform or place any written information on record, learned State Commission has not committed any error

in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint.

CONSEQUENT LY , petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to cost.