Commission rejects insurance firm’s appeal against forum order

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

Chandigarh, August 30

Saying that delay of a few days in lodging an FIR cannot be permitted to be a valid reason or ground for the insurance company to repudiate the genuine claim of theft of a vehicle, the State Dispute Redressal Consumer Commission, Chandigarh, has rejected the appeal of the insurance company filed against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Chandigarh.

The forum had directed National Insurance Company Limited to pay the ‘insured declared value’ (IDV) of the vehicle to a consumer along with Rs5,000 litigation cost. The consumer approached the forum after the insurance company denied the claim on the ground that the complainant delayed the filing of an FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle and he also filed the complaint four years after the case was closed. The company said the consumer also failed to submit the untraced report duly attested by the court.

Randeep Singh, a resident of Sector 20, told the forum that his Mahindra Bolero was insured with the company. The vehicle was stolen while it was parked outside his house. He lodged an FIR in this regard on October 16, 2013. The incident was also reported to the company and all available documents were supplied as demanded.

He said all documents were kept in the vehicle. He alleged that the company repudiated his claim without reasonable cause and justification.

It justified the decision saying there was a delay in lodging the FIR by the complainant as the theft took place on October 9, 2013 and the FIR was registered on October 16, 2013.

The company also said the complainant was negligent in taking due care of the vehicle as he left the keys as well as all documents in the vehicle. The complainant also did not inform the registering authority about the theft.

The company said the case was closed as “No Claim” on August 8, 2014. So, the complaint filed in 2018 was time-barred.

The district forum found the company guilty of deficiency in services and directed it to pay the ‘insured declared value’ (IDV) of the vehicle to the consumer along with the litigation cost of Rs5,000. The company challenged the order before the commission.

The commission, after hearing the arguments, said there was no illegality in the district forum’s order. The commission said delay of a few days in lodging an FIR cannot be permitted to be a valid reason or ground for the insurance company to repudiate the genuine claim of theft.

“If the insurance companies keep on doing like this, then it would be detrimental to the rights of consumers and there would be no meaning of taking comprehensive insurance policies by paying hefty premiums by such consumers,” the commission said in the order.