Insurance company to pay Rs 1.05 lakh for theft of motorcycle

Insurance company to pay Rs 1.05 lakh for theft of motorcycle

The commission gave the order while dismissing the National Insurance Company's appeal challenging the district forum's order.

The state commission bench of President Justice B A Zaidi and member Kanwal Inder rejected the insurance firm's contention that there was a discrepancy related to the date of the theft mentioned by motor cycle owner Neeraj in his claim.

"It is true that there is difference in the dates given by the respondent about theft, but that will not necessarily imply that his two wheeler was not stolen. There has been some confusion and mistake for the dates which will not wipe out the credibility of the averment," the forum said.

The consumer forum refused to accept the insurance company's submissions that the claim was not maintainable as Neeraj had not informed them immediately after the theft.
"As regards the question of the claim being not maintainable on the ground that the information was not made immediately, it is to be seen that the claim was made on November 19, 2007 while and the theft took place on November, 6-7, 2007, after about 12 or 13 days and there was no inordinate delay per se in filing the claim."

"The contention that the claim is barred because no immediate information was given to the insurance company cannot be upheld," the forum said.

The insurance company had approached the state consumer commission against the the district forum's order, directing it to pay Rs 70,205, along with Rs 30,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards costs of litigation to Neeraj, whose two-wheeler was stolen in November 2007.

Neeraj had lodged an First Information Report on November 7 saying the vehicle was stolen on November 6 and had approached the insurance company on November 19 to claim an amount of Rs 70,205 for the loss of his bike.

The company, however, refused to grant any relief to Neeraj saying he had violated the policy conditions as he had not informed it immediately after the theft and also misguided it regarding the incident by giving different dates of theft in different documents.