Haryana

Sonipat

CC/352/2015

Sushil Kumar S/o Ranjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devender Singh Malik

16 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.352 of 2015

Instituted on: 18.09.2015                 

Date of order: 16.03.2016

 

Sushil Kumar son of Ranjeet Singh r/o Mandori, tehsil Kharkhoda, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ist Floor 110-115, Krishna Apra Business Square Netaji Subhashh Place, New Delhi-34.

                                      …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh.DS Malik Advocate for complainant.

          Sh.HC Jain, Adv. 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 respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of tractor which was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 19.4.2013 to 18.4.2014  and unfortunately, it was stolen during the intervening night of 03/04.10.2013. FIR was lodged with the concerned policy station on 4.10.2013.  The respondent was intimated by the complainant immediately regarding the theft of the tractor.  Untrace report was also obtained from the court of Ld. JMIC Sonepat . The complainant has submitted all the relevant documents to the respondent, but the respondent has put an objection that RC of the vehicle is issued on 3.12.2013 after the loss occurred.  Till date neither the claim has been repudiated nor the same has been paid to the complainant by the respondent whereas the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.6,46,000/- from the respondent.  This wrongful act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  After receiving the information on 9.10.2013, the respondent on 10.10.2013 deputed MBS Associates as Investigator to investigate the cause, nature and extent of loss and during the investigation, it was transpired that the vehicle was stated to have been stolen on 3/4.10.2013 and the vehicle was got registered after its theft.  The investigator has submitted his report dated 16.6.2014 to the respondent.  The vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 19.4.2013. The alleged loss occurred on 3.10.2013 and the vehicle was registered on 3.12.2013 i.e. about 8 months after the date of its purchase and two months after the date of alleged loss.   There was violation of Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the complainant since 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 learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  After receiving the information on 9.10.2013, the respondent on 10.10.2013 deputed MBS Associates as Investigator to investigate the cause, nature and extent of loss and during the investigation, it was transpired that the vehicle was stated to have been stolen on 3/4.10.2013 and the vehicle was got registered after its theft.  The investigator has submitted his report dated 16.6.2014 to the respondent.  The vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 19.4.2013. The alleged loss occurred on 3.10.2013 and the vehicle was registered on 3.12.2013 i.e. about 8 months after the date of its purchase and two months after the date of alleged loss.   There was violation of Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the complainant since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

         Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for any claim or not?

         But we find no force in this contention of the ld. Counsel for the respondent and observation of this Forum is fortified with the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission rendered in case titled as National Ins. Co. Ltd. VGs. Ram Diya, CLT 2015(2) page 543,  wherein it has been held that:-

         Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 39 and 192-Insurance Claim-Registration of vehicle-Theft of unregistered vehicle-Vehicle driven from house to hospital-Theft of vehicle while parked in parking of hospital-Held-At the time of theft, vehicle was not being driven by anyone—Thus, at the time of theft, the respondent was not violating Section 39 of the Act-Held-Repudiation of insurance claim by the insurance company is unjustified.

         In view of the above cited law, we are of the view that the respondent wrongly and illegally denied the legal and genuine claim of the complainant.

         In the present case, the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.6,46,000/-.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if after deducting 25% from the IDV, the remaining amount is directed to be paid to the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to deduct 25% from the IDV of the vehicle and to pay the remaining amount to the complainant.  The respondent is further directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization.

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

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

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

Member, DCDRF       Member, DCDRF,      President

    SNP                SNP              DCDRF SNP.

 

ANNOUNCED: 16.03.2016