First Appeal No. 352/2016. Case: Gograj Ghayal Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.. Rajasthan State Consumer Forum SCDRC Cases
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 352/2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Prashant Mantri, Counsel and For Respondents: Kamal Chamaria, Counsel |
| Judges | Nisha Gupta, J. (President) and Meena Mehta, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Law |
| Judgement Date | March 30, 2017 |
| Court | Rajasthan State Consumer Forum SCDRC Cases |
Order:
Nisha Gupta, J. (President), (Jaipur)
-
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Bharatpur dated 29.2.2016 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant.
-
The contention of the appellant is that after the theft of the vehicle police was informed after 21 days and claim before the Insurance Co. was filed on 13.7.2009. Hence, the claim should have been dismissed.
-
Per contra the contention of the respondent is that the police has been informed on the same day which is evident from Anx. 1 and further the fact of theft was informed to finance company and finance company has informed the insurance company. Hence, there is no delay in intimation and the claim has rightly been awarded.
-
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.
-
There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was insured which was found stolen on the morning of 14.5.2009. On the same day a written report was sent to the police but police has registered the case with delay and to fortify this contention Anx. 1 has been submitted which has been submitted to the police station Khandoli Distt. Agra which bears the date of 14.5.2009. Hence, Anx. 1 make it clear that on the same day the police was informed. Anx. 6 also speaks that finance company was informed. On the top of Anx. 6 date 15.5.2009 has been written which has some cutting and the bottom of the paper date contains 16.5.2009.
-
The contention of the respondent is that he informed the finance company and finance company further gave information to the insurance company and Anx. 6 also contains endorsement for insurance company. There is no evidence to the effect that this endorsement was ever communicated to the insurance company. In complaint also in para No. 3 it has been stated that the insurance company was informed. Further in para 12 it has been specifically stated that the insurance company was informed through finance company but there is no evidence on record which could show that the finance company has informed the fact to the insurance company. No affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 4 finance company has been submitted and further more in appeal additional evidence Anx. A-1 has been submitted by which the insurance company has been informed which contains the date of 13.7.2009 which makes it abundantly clear that the insurance company was informed late.
-
The contention of the respondent is that...
To continue reading
Request your trial