Haryana

Sonipat

CC/96/2015

GIRDHAR GOPAL S/O RISHIKESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,2. THE DIVISION MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MANNU MALIK

16 Nov 2015

ORDER

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.96 of 2015

                             Instituted on:19.03.2015

                             Date of order:16.11.2015

 

Girdhar Gopal sonof Rishikesh, r/o H.No.318, Moh. Kot, Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.       

Versus

 

1.New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,  Divisional Office-IX, Fortune Park, Ist Floor, 35/1 Park Street, Tasker Town, Shivaji Nagar, Banglore-560051 through its Divisional Manager.

2.The Divisional Manager, The New India Ass. Co. Ltd. Ist Floor, Vardhman complex, Opp. General Hospitla, Sonepat.

                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik, Advocate for Complainant.

 Sh.  Surender Malik, Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging  therein that he purchased one Samsung Grand Neo Mobile Phone worth Rs.18000/-  and the same was got insured with the respondents.  On 8.5.2014, the said mobile phone of the complainant was lost and report to this effect was made to Subzi Mandi, Sonepat. The complainant lodged his claim with the respondents regarding loss of the said mobile  and the complainant also submitted all the documents with the respondents, but till date, the respondents have not settled the claim of the complainant as they are putting of the complainant on one pretext or the other and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

 

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated vide letter dated 17.7.2014 as the complainant himself has not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy.  As per the clause of the policy, the insurer is not liable for loss due to mysterious disappearance, forgotten or misplaced or lost or if the handset is left unattended at any point of time. The complainant has cooked up a false story and thus, he is not entitled for any claim amount and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present case.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of the complainant has already been repudiated vide letter dated 17.7.2014 as the complainant himself has not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy.  As per the clause of the policy, the insurer is not liable for loss due to mysterious disappearance, forgotten or misplaced or lost or if the handset is left unattended at any point of time. The complainant has cooked up a false story and thus, he is not entitled for any claim amount and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present case.

          But we find no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents. 

“Mysterious disappearance means a disappearance that is mysterious.  To constitute a mysterious disappearance, the disappearance must be under known, puzzling and baffling circumstances which stir up wonder, curiosity or speculation or under circumstances which are difficult to explain or understand.

Mysterious disappearance means a loss, the surrounding circumstances of which excluded the probability of theft.  Nevertheless the phrase is so vague and so difficult of interpretation that many companies issued policies wherein it was expressly stated that unexplained loss or mysterious disappearance would raise a presumption of theft.”

DEFINITION OF THEFT IN INDIAN PENAL CODE

 

          Theft whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable

property out of the possession of any person without the persons concern, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to be theft”.

 

          We have perused the document Ex.C3 i.e. police complaint dated 8.5.2014 made by the complainant to the police station and the contents mentioned in this document fully supports the pleadings of the complainant.  So, it is held that definitely the respondents are liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents  to make the payment of Rs.18000/- (Rs.eighteen thousand) to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which the above said order shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

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

          Certified copy  of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

          File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)           (Nagender Singh)                    Member, DCDRF,             Member, DCDRF        President, DCDRF,

Sonepat.             Sonepat.             Sonepat.

 

ANNOUNCED 16.11.2015