NCDRC directs insurance firm to pay Rs 6L for stolen car

The apex consumer commission has directed an insurance company to pay over Rs six lakh to a man for his stolen car while rejecting the firm's claim that there was delay in intimating it about the theft.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench headed by presiding member B C Gupta directed Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs 6.37 lakh to Sonepat-resident Jagjit Singh.
The NCDRC allowed Singh's appeal against the Chandigarh state commission's order setting aside the district forum's direction to the firm to pay the insurance amount.
"He belongs to a village, 20-25 kms away from Sonepat, whereas the incident happened in Delhi and the office of the insurance company is situated at Chandigarh. It cannot be expected from a person in such a situation to rush to the office of the insurance company about 250 kms away from his place of residence to give a written intimation in their office about the incident," the bench said.

"In any case, the insurance company has not been able to state or prove anywhere, as to what prejudice had been caused to them if intimation reached their office after 9-10 days of the occurrence," it said.
According to the complaint filed by Singh, his Hyundai Accent (Viva) car was insured with the company for the period August 31, 2005 to August 30, 2006.

The complaint also said that the car was stolen on the intervening night of August 23-24, 2006, when it was parked at the residence of Singh's friend, who was using the car at that time.
It further said that an FIR was registered at the Prashant Vihar police station in Delhi on August 25, 2006 and the insurance company was also intimated through written request on August 26, 2006.

The claim filed with the company in October 2006, was denied on the ground that information about the incident was given to them on September 2, 2006 i.E. After over one week of the occurrence.
The insurance company took the stand in its reply before the district forum that it came to know about the alleged theft on September 2, 2006, 10 days after the theft.