DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM  GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                                                Consumer Complaint No: 27 of 2011                                                                                                                                                               Date of Institution: 17.01.2011                                                                                                                                                                         Date of Decision: 09.10.2015.

Mamta  D/o Sh. Subhash Chand, R/o Village Bass Padamka, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurgaon and W/o Shri Hoshiyar s/o Sh. Mohar Singh, Presently residing at Village Telpuri, P.O.Nanukalan, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                                                                  ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd, E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022, India through its Director/Authorized Signatory.

Devender Kumar, Branch Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd, First Floor, Shop No.313 (D), Sushant Shopping Arcade, Sushant Lok-I, Gurgaon.

Arun Kumar, A.S.M of Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd, 102015-FF Shop No.313(D) Sushant Shopping Arcade, Sushant Lok-1, Gurgaon, Haryana.

Kapoor s/o Shri Patram R/o Village Lohchab, P.O.Nanukalan, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurgaon i.e. authorized agent of Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

                                                                                                ..Opposite parties

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

BEFORE:     SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

 SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

Present:        Sh. Dharmender Yadav, Adv for the complainant.

                    Sh. Atul Grover, Adv for the opposite parties.

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.       

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she got insured her Motorcycle bearing Regd. No.HR-72-1269 insured with the opposite party-insurance company vide policy No.102015/31/11/200571 with IDV of Rs.33,500/- which was valid w.e.f. 23.04.2010 to 22.04.2011. However, during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the aforesaid motorcycle was stolen on 14.06.2010 when her husband went to duty and parked it near the gate of his employer company and when about 1.00 her husband returned back  the motorcycle it was found missing. In this regard FIR No.150 dated 14.06.2010 has been registered in P.S.Manear u/s 379 IPC.  Police, however, failed to trace the vehicle and filed Untrace Report.  Information about the theft was promptly given to OP-2 & 3 and she also submitted the claim with the opposite party-insurance company. However the opposite party-insurance company has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 22.10.2010. Thus, the opposite parties are deficient in providing services to the complainant. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay the insured amount with interest. She also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the harassment and mental agony caused to her. The complaint is supported with an affidavit of the complaint and the documents placed on file.

2                 The opposite parties in their joint written reply have alleged that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the insurance company as the complainant has violated the condition no.1 of the insurance policy by not informing the insurance company immediately upon the occurrence as she has informed the insurance company about the theft of the vehicle after about 2 months and 19 days and thus, she has breached the condition No.1 of the insurance policy.

3                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.

4                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that she obtained Insurance Policy of the opposite party bearing Policy No. .102015/31/11/200571 with IDV of Rs.33,500/- qua her motorcycle bearing Regd. No.HR-72-1269 and during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the said motorcycle was stolen regarding which FIR No.150 dated 14.06.2010 u/s 379 IPC, P.S.Manesar was registered and the matter was reported allegedly on 15.06.2010 to OP-2 & OP-3 by the complainant and she also sent the copy of FIR. However, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on account of delay in giving intimation to the insurance company for about 2 months and 19 days.

5                 However, as per the contention of the opposite parties the claim has rightly been repudiated because the complainant failed to report the matter to the insurance company as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

6                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on file it is evident that the FIR was lodged immediately after the occurrence  and the copy of the same was sent to the opposite party on the next date. Moreover, the surveyor who was appointed by the insurance company has also reported that the claim was admissible in terms of the policy as shown in the report dated 26.09.2010 (Ex.R-4). Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case that the insured vehicle was stolen on 14.06.2010 and the matter was reported to the police on 14.06.2010 itself as is evident from the FIR (Ann C-5). The said vehicle has not been traced so far and final report (Ann C-6) has been submitted by the police on 25.08.2010. There is no other possible ground to reject the claim except that the intimation of theft was given by the complainant to the opposite parties after 2 months and 19 days but the said ground is of no avail in the present circumstances of the case in view of the fact that the FIR was lodged promptly and in view of the fact that the surveyor has mentioned in its report who was appointed by the insurance company that the claim was admissible. Therefore, the opposite party has rejected the claim of the complainant in an illegal manner and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such non reimbursement of the claim tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We, therefore,  direct the opposite parties No. 1 to 3  to pay the insured amount of the vehicle along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 17.01.2011 till realization. The complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony Rs.5,000/-. She is  also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.3100/-. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 shall make the compliance of the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

Announced                                                   (Subhash Goyal)

09.10.2015                                                       President,

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member