Complainant Kuldeep Kumar has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of the claim amount i.e. Rs.33,600/- as IDV of the stolen scooter Hero-Maestro. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation for causing delay in releasing the claim  and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith  interest @ 12% P.A., in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is owner of the vehicle i.e. Scooter Hero-Maestro bearing registration No.PB-35-V-1823. The vehicle was insured by the opposite parties for the period from 20.04.2016 to 19.04.2017 vide policy No.3005/2011061706/B0/0000000016  with IDV value of Rs.33,600/- and an amount of Rs.1356/- was paid by him as premium for the insurance. He has next pleaded that at the time of getting the vehicle insured only document i.e. single page of policy certificate No.3005/2011061706/B0/0000000016   was issued by the opposite parties and official/agent of the opposite parties stated that the policy certificate alongwith terms and conditions of the policy will be sent to him through post. However, neither policy certificate nor the terms of the policy were set to him and after waiting for few days, when the abovesaid documents were not received by him then he telephonically enquired for the same and on this the opposite parties replied that the Scooter Hero-Maestro is insured against all risks/perils for a period 20.04.2016 to 19.4.2017. He has also pleaded that unfortunately on 19.05.2016 the vehicle was stolen by the unknown persons and intimation regarding the same was immediately sent to the police of P.S.Mamoon Cantt. District Pathankot, Punjab and the police started investigating for the theft of the vehicle. However, the investigation of the theft of his scooter clubbed by the police with the FIR no.41 dated 18.06.2016 although the intimation of the theft was given on the same date against written intimation dated 19.05.2016 and on the same date he immediately called the insurance company at its toll-free number 18002666 and intimated about the theft of the vehicle. Opposite parties appointed investigator to investigate the claim and he submitted all the documents required for processing/releasing the insurance claim amount. The intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was also given to the concerned RTA office. Thereafter, opposite parties called him to submit the final police report and therefore he sought the copy of the untraced report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. from the police and submitted to the opposite parties. On submission of untraced report, opposite parties assured him that his claim shall be released within a month.  He kept on waiting for the insurance claim but when for a considerable period, he did not receive any response from the opposite parties, then he again approached to the opposite parties in the month of March 2016 but opposite parties put off the matter on one pretext or other. After almost one year, to his utter surprise he received a letter dated 30.04.2017 wherein the opposite parties repudiated his claim on flimsy and fictitious grounds. His insurance claim is wrongly and illegally repudiated without assigning any reason which was not only results in deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties but also amounts to unfair trade practice on their part. Hence this complaint.

 3.        Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant has no lucus standi to file the present complaint; the insurance is a contract based on utmost good faith; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Actually the claim has been lodged against Two Wheeler package policy and after scrutinizing the documents submitted and further after verifying the facts, it came into notice that the vehicle was stolen on 19 May, 2016 and the FIR for the same has been lodged on 22 July, 2016. The FIR for the stolen vehicle is lodged after 64 days of the theft of vehicle, which is the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, which clearly provides that in case of theft the insurance shall give immediate notice to the police. Further even the intimation to the insurance company has been given after delay of 166 days and the insurance company lost its right to early investigate the matter, which may be helpful in tracing the vehicle. The policy terms and conditions clearly provide that the notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of them. So, there is material violation and due to which the claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter dated 30 April, 2017. So, there is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and the claim has been rightly repudiated on the ground of delay of intimation. So, there is no liability of the insurance company. And this ld.Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint.  On merits, it was submitted that complete policy alongwith terms and condition has been duly provided to the complainant. The complainant is making false excuses. No complaint has ever been made by the complainant to the insurance company in this regard which fact clearly shows that now he is making false excuses. No timely intimation has been given to the police and insurance company, which creates doubts on the theft story made by the complainant.  It was submitted that the repudiation letter dated 30.04.2017 is legal and valid. The claim has been repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy.  All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

4.       Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.

5.       Ld.counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Apurva Sharma Authorized Signatory Ex.OP-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.

6.        Written arguments not filed by the parties.

7.    We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the  parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels for the parties and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

8.    As detailed above, in the present complaint the complainant filed the insurance claim for theft of his scooter No.PB-35-V-1823 (copy of R.C. placed at Ex.C-2) with opposite party under insurance policy valid from 20.4.2016 to 19.4.2017 (Ex.C-1). Date of incident is 19.5.2016 which is well within the insurance cover period. It is alleged by complainant that his claim has been repudiated by opposite parties vide their letter dated 30.4.2017 (Ex.C-5) on the ground of delayed registration of F.I.R. and delayed filing of claim.  On the other hand, complainant placed on record a copy of intimation given to Police Station as Ex.C-3 which is of the same date  as that of theft of vehicle. As per untraceable report which is placed at Ex.C-4 the matter is investigated by Police under FIR No.41 dated 18.6.2016.

9.        Opposite parties in their written reply admitted the theft of vehicle and filing of the insurance claim. It is stated by opposite parties that the said claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide their letter dated 30.4.2017 as per terms and conditions of the policy on the ground that FIR in this case has been registered after 64 days and insurance claim has been filed by the complainant after 166 days.

10.      From the above facts and figures of the case the main reason for denial of the claim is delayed registration of FIR and delayed filing of the claim, but given above complainant has informed the Police Station on the same day but if the police has registered the case after 64 days the complainant cannot be considered at fault.

11.    As the premium of the policy is being paid by the policy holder and technically the claim is also seems to be in order. Relying upon the judgment in case of "Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar First Appeal No.43 of 2014 (2) CLT 390 : 2014 (47) R.C.R. (Civil) 308 Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula." So the repudiation of the claim merely on the ground of delayed intimation cannot be considered as justified.

12.     We are of the opinion that repudiation of the claim of the complainant by opposite parties is not justified and complainant deserves the insurance claim of theft of his vehicle.

13.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering facts and figures of the case present complaint partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay insurance claim of Rs.33,600/- i.e. equal to IDV value to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of filing of the claim till its realization within 30 days of receipt of copy of orders.  Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as lumpsum for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.

 14.        The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

15.    Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges.  file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                               

            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

September 16, 2022                                             Member

*MK*