Haryana

Sonipat

CC/97R/2014

PARKASH S/O MOHAN LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. HERO CIRPORATE SERVICE LTD.,2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY RATHEE

10 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.97 of 2014

                                    Instituted on:11.04.2014

                                    Date of order:27.04.2015

 

Parkash son of Mohan Lal r/o Rajsthani Colony, Kundli, distt. Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1.Hero Corporate Service Ltd., TR Motors, TIAO Manyari, Kundli, distt. Sonepat through its branch Manager.

2.National Insurance Co. Ltd.  Hero Vertical 101106, BMC House NI, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its Branch Manager.

   ……..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Ajay Rathi, Adv. for complainant.        

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte.

Sh. LK Doda Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the registered owner of motor cycle no.HR10R/8270 which was insured with respondent no.2 through respondent no.1 for the period 13.8.2013 to 12.8.2014. But unfortunately the said motor cycle was stolen on 29.1.2014 and FIR no.43 u/s 379 IPC was registered with PS Sadar Bazar on 30.1.2014.  The complainant again and again requested the respondent for paying the claim amount, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The present complaint has been contested by the respondent no.2 only as the respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.1.2015.

         The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the vehicle was not locked by him properly as the lock had already been damaged.   Shri Tejender Pal Singh Adv. was appointed as investigator who has submitted his report.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       The complainant in support of his case has placed on record the copy of driving licence as C1, copy of RC of the vehicle as C2, application moved by SHO PS Sadar Bazaar Delhi to NCRC as C3,  insurance policy as C4, copy of FIR as C5, copy of order dated 20.3.2014 passed by Ambika Singh MM Delhi in FIR no.43/14 as C6, copy of untraced report as C7, copy of final report as C8,  copy of recovery status of the vehicle as C9,  copy of NOC issued by Safe Finlease Pvt. Ltd. as C10.

         The respondent no.2 has placed on record the copy of letter dated 15.4.2014 as R1, copy of insurance policy as R2, copy of investigator report as R3.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the vehicle was not locked by him properly as the lock had already been damaged.   Shri Tejender Pal Singh Adv. was appointed as investigator who has submitted his report.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

         In the present case, the respondent no.2 has placed on record the copy of investigator report as R3, but it is not supported by any affidavit of the investigator.  As per investigator report, the vehicle was not locked properly because the lock was already damaged.  In this regard, why the statement of complainant was not recorded by the investigator and if recorded by the investigator, the same has neither been produced before this Forum nor has been annexed by the respondent no.2 with the report of investigator.

         In our view, since the theft of the vehicle has taken place during the validity of the insurance policy and the FIR was lodged by the complainant with the concerned police station immediately on the next day.  The untrace report has been issued by the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate. So, in our view, the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount from the respondent no.2. Thus, we direct the respondent no.2 to make the payment of Rs.31496/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The complainant is also directed to submit the affidavit, form 29 and 30 with the respondent no.2 for the settlement of his claim.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 27.04.2015