BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHIMLA, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 157/2008
Date of presentation: 26.05.2008
Date of decision: 28.12.2009
Shri Kumsang Tsetan S/O Shri Yashi
Resident of House No.13, Tibetan Nursery School,
Near Medical Boys Hostel Road, P.O. Sanjauli,
Shimla-171006.
… Complainant.
Versus
Senior Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Mythe Estate, Kaithu, Shimla-171003.
…Opposite Party.
For the complainant: Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:-
This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, he is owner of Motor cycle bearing registration No.HP-07-7385, which was insured by him, with the OP-Company. It is averred that, one tyre (with rim) of the motor cycle was stolen, hence, brought the matter to the notice of the OP-Company, as well, as to the Police, upon which FIR, was lodged with the concerned police station. Thereafter, insurance claim came to be lodged with the OP-Company, who instead of settling his claim, repudiated the same vide communication dated 14.12.2007. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Company and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. The OP-Company, in its reply to the complaint, besides raising preliminary objections, admitted the fact of complainant being the owner of motor cycle and it having been insured with them. It is also admitted that on receipt of the information qua the theft of the tyre, the matter was investigated and it was found that the claim was not covered under the insurance policy and it fell under the exclusion clause, as such, the claim was rightly repudiated. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part.
3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.
5. The grouse of the complainant, is, that, the insurance claim, so lodged by him, with the OP-Company, qua the theft of tyre (with rim) of the motor cycle bearing registration No.HP-07-7385, was illegally and arbitrarily, repudiated by the OP-Company, vide communication dated 27.12.2005, which, is, being sought to be struck down, with a prayer for consequentially affording him relief of indemnification to him of the sum, spent by him, to, make the motor cycle road worthy. The OP-Company, is, seeking to exculpate their liability, to, pay the sum, on, the strength, of exclusionary clause which provides, that, the loss or damage to the accessories by burglary or theft hence within the ambit of the exclusionary clause, as such, it is contended, that, the repudiation of the claim, is, tenable.
6. The said contention, as raised by the OP-Company, in its reply, has not come to be repulsed, by, the complainant, by adduction of cogent and satisfactory evidence, rather, the existence of Annexure R-1, which is a, copy of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, candidly divulges, the, fact that, the loss or damage to the accessories by burglars, house breaking or theft, unless the vehicle, is, stolen at the same time, falls within the ambit of the exclusionary clause. Hence, when the motor cycle of the complainant was not stolen and only damage to the accessory, i.e. tyre of the motor cycle was stolen, hence, the loss falling under the exclusionary clause, the, repudiation of the claim of the complainant, cannot be construed to be illegal, rather, the OP-Company while repudiating the claim, has taken due care and caution to abide by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the OP-Company was well within its right to repudiate the claim of the complainant, hence, in theirs repudiating the claim of the complainant, cannot be construed to be a deficiency in service on its part.
7. In the light of the above discussion, the, complaint being without any merit deserves dismissal and we order accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 28th day of December, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Karuna Machhan) (Charanjit Singh)
Member Member.
Tags: Oriental Insurance