Page 50 - Insurance Times September 2021

insurer denied having received the intimation through SMS negligence on his part in safeguarding the vehicle as he
on 24.11.2015. G R 17 of India Motor Tariff rule relating to could not submit one ignition key. The insurer appeared for
transfer of vehicle allows 14 days time to the purchaser of personal hearing and stated that on receipt of the com-
the vehicle to informthe insurer to record the change of plaint through this forum, the claim was reviewed and it
ownership. Here in this case the insurer was informed within was decided to settle the claim on sub standard basis for
this time limit. Unfortunately the accident happened so an amount of Rs. 4,24,625/- being 75% of IDV subject to
suddenly on the next day and it did not allow the purchaser consent of the complainant. Subsequently, over telephone,
to inform the insurer before the misshape. the complainant also expressed satisfaction over settlement
Inview of this, the complaint was admitted and awrd for of the claim.
Rs.11651/- was made in favor of the complainant.
Subhash
Complaint No:AHD-G-023-1718-0187 V/s

Mr. Hitesh K. Khusalani National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v/s
Mr. Subhash, the complainant has stated that his motor-
Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. cycle was stolen on 03.11.2015 and though he had submit-
ted all the required documents to the insurer, his claim was
Claim for theft of two wheeler vehicle was rejected on the
ground that the intimation of the theft was not given to repudiated by the insurance company on the ground of
the insurer in time. The vehicle was stolen on 25.09.2016. delay in intimation. The complainant stated that his mo-
FIR was lodged with the police on 14.102016 and the in- torcycle bearing registration number UP 16 AA 9544 was
surer was intimated on 17.10.2016. the insurer submitted stolen on 03.11.2015. Immediately, the incident of theft of
that policy condition No.1 necessitated immediate intima- the vehicle was reported to the insurer on telephone and
tion to the insurer as well as to the police authorities. The to the police on 21.11.2015. Thereafter, he approached the
representative of the respondent stressed the need for the insurer to submit written intimation to the policy issuing
office but they refused to receive the letter and directed
urgent intimation in order to enable both the insurer and
him to approach their Claim Hub. The complainant further
the police authorities to take immediate steps to trace the
stated that the officials of the insurer had harassed him a
stolen vehicle. In this case the intimation was late by 22
days and it deprived the insurer of the opportunity to trace lot and made him run from one office to another for sub-
the vehicle. Therefore the claim was repudiated. Repudia- mission of intimation letter, hence, alleged delay in submis-
tion was upheld. sion of intimation to the insurer was not his fault alone. The
insurer stated that incident of theft occurred on 03.11.2015
The complaint failed to succeed. but the complainant had submitted intimation letter to
them on 08.12.2015 i.e after 34 days. The complainant was
Umesh Guglani asked to explain reasons of undue delay in intimation but
he could not give any convincing reply. The complainant
V/s admitted that there was some delay in intimation to the
Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. insurer and to the police but the incident of theft was con-
firmed by the police in their final report dated 31.12.2015;
Mr. Umesh Guglani, the complainant has stated in his com- hence, repudiation of the claim was not justified. Ongoing
plaint that his car was stolen on 24.12.2016. He had sub- through the documents exhibited and the oral submissions,
mitted all the required documents to the insurer but his it is observed that the incident of theft had actually oc-
claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the curred as confirmed by the Police authorities also in their
ground of non submission of one ignition key. The complain- Final Investigation report dated 31.12.2015. However, there
ant stated that his car- Hyundai Xcent bearing registration was some negligence on the part of complainant as he did
no. UP 80 DH 5888 was stolen on 24.12.2016. The inci- not inform the insurer in writing, immediately after theft
dence of theft was reported to the police and to the in- of the vehicle. Considering the fact that theft of the vehicle
surer on 25.12.2016. All the required documents except one cannot be disputed, The Insurance Company is directed to
ignition key were submitted to the insurer but his claim was settle the claim on sub standard basis instead of repudia-
repudiated by the insurance company on the ground of tion. T

50 The Insurance Times, September 2021