BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint. No.863 of 2011
Date of instt.23.12.2011
Date of order: 19.02.2015
.
Randhir Singh son of Shri Fateh Singh resident of house no.4210/08, Shiv Colony, Kaithal Road, Karnal. .
………Complainant.
Vs.
1.IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd.FAI House, 2nd Floor, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Qutab Industrial Area, New Delhi 110067, through its Manager.
2.The Branch Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. , IFFCO Area Office Shop No.11, Main Market, Sector 8, U.E. Karnal.
………Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……. President.
Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma……….Member.
Present Sh.Naresh Kumar Barana Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Y.P.Arora Advocate for the Ops.
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant is the registered owner of motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-05T-3593 Hero Honda Splendor Model 2006 and the said vehicle was insured with the Ops vide insurance policy No. 73802885. On 31.8.2010 the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person from the gate of Atal Park, Sector-9, Karnal when Sushil Kumar, son of the complainant alongwith his friend had gone there. The complainant tried his best to search the motor cycle but in vain. Thereafter FIR No.712 dated 31.8.2010 was registered with the Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. The complainant informed the Ops and lodged claim by completing all the formalities but in vain which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops alleging deficiency in the services and has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay the claim alongwith compensation for the harassment and the litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the contents of the complaint alongwith Ex.C1 copy of registration certificate, repudiation letter Ex.C2 copy of FIR Ex.C3 and untraced report Ex.C5.
2. On notice the Ops appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant was not consumer; that the complainant has no loucs standi to file the present complaint and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint.
On merits, insurance of the vehicle in question was not denied. It was contended that as per complaint the vehicle was stolen on 31.8.2010 and the intimation of theft was given to the Ops on 26.4.2011 after a period of 238 days and as such there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such the claim has rightly been repudiated and there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very 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 complainant is the registered owner of motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-05T-3593 Hero Honda Splendor Model 2006 and the said vehicle was insured with the Ops vide insurance policy No. 73802885. On 31.8.2010 the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person from the gate of Atal Park,Sector 9, Karnal, when Sushil Kumar, son of the complainant alongwith his friend had gone there. The complainant tried his best to search the motor cycle but in vain. Thereafter FIR No.712 dated 31.8.2010 Ex.C3 was registered with the Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. The complainant informed the Ops and lodged claim by completing all the formalities but the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide Ex.C2
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the delay if any in reporting the matter to the Ops is not fatal to the present case and the claim has wrongly been repudiated by the Ops. He has placed reliance on the law laid down in cases New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Mukesh Sehgal 2009(1) CPC page 548, OIC Versus Parvesh Chander Chadha 2009() CPC page 55 and Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Sri Avvn Ganesh 2012 CPC Page 681.
5. However, it was argued on behalf of the Ops that claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated as the intimation of theft was given after 238 days to the Ops and as such there was delay in giving intimation. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Satpal Versus United India InsuranceCo.Ltd.and Ors. 2013(3) CPC page 518 and Surender Vs. NIC 2013(2) CPC page 137. Reliance has also been placed on the law laid down in case Ramesh Chandra Meghwanshi Vs. The OIC Ltd. Revision petition No.793 of 2014 order dated 6.2.2015.
6. . Therefore, after going through the circumstances of the case and the evidence on the file that the vehicle bearing No. HR-05T-3593 was insured with the OPs. The said vehicle was stolen and the matter was reported to the police and the FIR Ex.C3 was registered. No doubt as per the contents of the FIR Ex.C3 the vehicle was stolen on 31.8.2010 and the FIR Ex.C3 was registered on the same day i.e. 31.8.2010 but as per the Ops there was delay of about238 days in reporting the matter to the Ops which has deprived the Ops to check and investigate the circumstances of the alleged theft. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the authorities relied upon by the Ops, the claim has been repudiated. However, the Hon,ble Apex Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs.OIC Civil Appeal no.2703 of 2010 has held that in such like cases the claim can be granted on non standard basis and has laid down the guide lines for granting compensation on non standard basis . Hon,ble National Commission has also taken the same view in case OIC Ltd. Versus Parvesh Chaander Chadha 2009(1) CPC Page 55. In view of the guide lines laid down in Amalendu Shaoo,s case (Supra) and the Hon,ble National Commission in OIC Ltd.,s case (Supra) we deem it proper to grant compensation on the basis of non standard basis to the extent of 75% of the admissible claim.
7. Therefore, in view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of 75% of the admissible claim to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 23.12.2011 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and the litigation expenses. The OPs shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty 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 record room after due compliance.
Announced
19.02.2015. (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Present Sh.Naresh Kumar Barana Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Y.P.Arora Advocate for the Ops.
Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
19.02.2015. (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
