Haryana

Sonipat

84/2014

PARDEEP KUMAR S/O JEET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,2. SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,3. MADAN INSURANCE & IN - Opp.Party(s)

MANNU MALIK

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.84 of 2014

                                Instituted on:28.03.2014

                                Date of order:28.08.2015

 

Pardeep Kumar son of Jeet Singh, r/o village Shapur Turk, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.  

Versus

 

1.Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E-8, RPIP RIIC, Sitapura, Jaipur(Raj) through its General Manager.

2.Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Jankapuri, Delhi through its Regional Manager.

3.Madan Insurance and Investment, Delhi road, TVS Showroom Sonepat through its Executive/Agent Rishi Pal Singh and Kamlesh Madan.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Rohit Gupta Adv. for respondent no.1 and 2.

           Respondent no.3 ex-parte.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that his motor cycle no.HR-10L/1798 which was insured with the respondents no.1 and 2 for the period w.e.f. 1.3.2013 to 28.2.2014 and  unfortunately it was stolen on 5.5.2013.  FIR no.206 dated 6.5.2013 was lodged with PS Civil Lines Sonepat.  The complainant also intimated the respondent regarding the theft of the vehicle and has also lodged the claim by submitting all the relevant documents, but till date, the respondent has not settled the claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, the complainant has come to this Forum  and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the loss allegedly took place on 5.5.2013 and the claim was intimated to the company belatedly as on 13.5.2013 and hence there was breach of condition no.1 of the policy and the claim of the complainant was not admissible and stands repudiated as no claim by the respondent vide letter dated 6.1.2014.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the loss allegedly took place on 5.5.2013 and the claim was intimated to the company belatedly as on 13.5.2013 and hence there was breach of condition no.1 of the policy and the claim of the complainant was not admissible and stands repudiated as no claim by the respondent vide letter dated 6.1.2014.

          The perusal of the contents of the written statement shows that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was given to the insurance company on 13.5.2013 i.e. after a delay of 8 days of the incident of theft of motor cycle which was stolen on 5.5.2013. In our view, the repudiation of the claim on the ground of delay in intimation to the company, is wrong and not legally justified and the complainant is definitely entitled to get the claim amount from the respondent insurance company.  The observation of this Forum is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula rendered in First appeal no.43 of 2014 titled as Shri Ram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar, vide order dated 10.3.2014 and keeping in view the above said order of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, we hereby declare the repudiation letter dated 6.1.2014 to be wrong, illegal, null and void and thus, we direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.twenty two thousands)  to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and further to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation to the complainant for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony and harassment.  The complainant is also directed to submit form no.28,29,30 alongwith affidavit, copy of untrace report and indemnity bond with the respondents.

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

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 28.08.2015