Date of filling:- 07/12/2019.                                                                         Date of Order/Judgement:-16/10/2023.                                         

                                          DISTRICT CONSUMER DIPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B  A  R  G  A  R  H

CONSUMER COMPLAINT  NO. 102 OF  2019

Anup Agrawal, S/o. Hariram Agrawal, aged about 30 years, R/o. Patrapali, Bugbuga(Garia Tikra), Po/Ps/Tahasil. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.           

                                                                                                   Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

 (1) General Manager, M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd, E 8, EPIP, RIICO,

       Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur (Rajastan) 302022.

 (2) The Branch Manager, M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd, Plot No. 1886, Main

       Road Budharaja, Astha Colony, In front of Orissa State Co.operative Bank, 2^nd floor,

       Sambalpur 768004.

                                                                                                            Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-                         :- Sri M.K. Satpathy, Advocate with Associates.

For the Opposite Party No.1 & 2  :-    :- Sri Ashok Kumar Dash, Advocate with Associates.

                                                -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra            .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agarwal             .....         .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.16/10/2023.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Anju Agarwal,  Member (w) :-

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is bonafide Consumer of M/s Shriram General Insurance Company  having a Insurance policy holder vide policy No. 331011/31/19/005997. The Complainant has raised the said policy for his two wheeler Yamaha Saluto vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-17-N-8147 having Engine No. E31EE079481 and Chasis No. MEIPE352J0049686 and for  the aforesaid vehicle the Complainant had paid the requisite premium through his vehicle dealer M/s. Shiv Automobiles, Main Road Bheden. On Dt. 27/28/03/2019 the said vehicle of the Complainant was kept in his residential house and was stolen theft away by some unknown person. The Complainant on Dt. 07/04/2019 reported the matter before the Attabira Police Station vide F.I.R. and for which a P.S. Case No. 87 was registered. The Complainant has done the insurance of the vehicle for a sum of  Rs. 54,454/-(Rupees fifty four thousand four hundred fifty four)only by paying premium of Rs. 1,963/-(Rupees one thousand nine hundred sixty three)only. The Complainant has placed the insurance claim before the Opposite Party No.1 through the Opposite Party No.2 vide claim No. 10000/31/2010/004256 and has furnished relevant documents as desired from time to time, instead of settling the claim the Opposite parties have called for various extraneous and baseless papers from the Complainant. A pleader notice was also served on Dt. 29/10/2019 to Opposite party No.1 but the Opposite Party No.1 has received the notice and remained silent.

For the deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Parties this Complaint was filed  by the Complainant before this Commission.

2. The Case of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 is that both the Opposite Parties have jointly filed their version and submitted that the Complaint is not maintainable. The Opposite Parties have admitted to the fact that the Opposite parties are doing insurance business and as they insured a new vehicle two wheeler Yamaha Saluto of the Complainant bearing Engine No. E31EE079481 and Chasis No. MEIPE352J0049686 vide policy bearing No. 331011/31/19/005997 having validity from 27/08/2018 to 26/08/2019. To avail insurance the  Complainant is required to prove that the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-17-N-8147 is now but the insured vehicle. The said vehicle of the Complainant while kept in his residential house was theft away by some unknown person in the night of 27/28/02/2019 and the Complainant reported the matter before the Attabira police on Dt. 07/04/2019 which was registered as P.s. Case No. 87 is not known to Opposite party and hence denied. The Complainant is required to prove his averments by filing the necessary documents relating to the police case like police paper including the FIR, Final report, Statement of the witness recorded by I.O U/s 164 of IPC etc. It is admitted that the Complainant placed his claim before the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties through registered letter for  processing the claim asked the Complainant to provide relevant documents but the Complainant did not pay heed and accordingly the claim was closed. Due to the non cooperation of the Complainant the claim was closed, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties, hence, the case to be dismissed.
3. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant, Opposite Party as well as oral submission and following issues are framed:-

 ISSUES

1. Are the Opposite Parties deficient in their service ?
2. What relief the Complainant is entitled for  ?

Issue No.1.

            It is an admitted fact that the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-17-N-8147 while kept in the residential house of the Complainant was being stolen by on Dt. 27/28/02/2019 and for which FIR was lodged before the Attabira police on Dt. 07/04/2019 vide Ps. Case No. 87. The aforesaid vehicle was insured from the period of Dt. 27/08/2018 to 26/08/2019 and for the insurance the Complainant had paid premium of  Rs. 1963/-(Rupees one thousand nine hundred sixty three) only when the Complainant claimed insurance the Opposite Parties closed the insurance due to delay in FIR as well as non availability of NOC.

            In Jaina Construction Company Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and Anr in  Civil Appeal No. 1069 of 2022, it was held by Honble Supreme Court that the insurance Company could not repudiate the claim merely on the ground that the Consumer intimated them about the theft after a long period of time. The Complainant has admitted that he is unable to pay the loan installment hence it is not possible to give NOC.

            As the Complainant had paid the premium of Rs. 1963/-(Rupees one thousand nine hundred sixty three) only and accordingly the Opposite Parties has to pay insurance  claim. Hence, non settlement of claim by the Opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.

            The issue is answered  in favour of Complainant.

Issue No.2.   

            As discussed supra the Complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

            Accordingly it is ordered.

O R D E R

The Complaint is allowed on contest against Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are directed to settle the claim and pay  IDV i.e. 54,459/-(Rupees fifty four thousand four hundred fifty nine) only along with Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for mental harassment and Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards litigation expenses within one month from the date of this Order failing which the entire Order will carry 12% intrest P.A. till realization. 

Order pronounced in open court on this 16^th day of  October  2023.

   Supply free copies to the parties.  

                                                                                              Typed to my dictation

                                                                                     and corrected by me.                                                                                            

I  agree,

( Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)                                                                    (Smt. Anju Agarwal)                                                            Dt.16/10/2023                                                                                            Dt.16/10/2023

 P r e s i d e n t                                                                                          M e m b e r (w)