Haryana

Karnal

734/2009

Sunil Kamboj S/o Jagdish Prashad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco -Tokio General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. N.K. Zak

26 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL

.

                                                           Complaint No. 734 of 2009

                                                                Date of instt.4.11.2009                      

                                                                       Date of decision: 05.03.2015

 

Sushil Kamboj son of Shri Jagdish Prashad resident of House no.1792-A, Sector 6, Urban Estate, Karnal tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                                ………..Complainant.

                             Versus

 

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Corporate Office, 4^th and 5^th Floor, IFFCO Towner, Plot NO.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon through its General  Manager.

                                                              ……… Opposite Party.

 

                             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer

                             Protection Act.

 

Before                        Sh.Subhash Goyal……. President.

                                    Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma….Member.

                  

 

 Present                    Sh.N.K.Zak Advocate for the complainant.

                                    Sh.Y.P.Arora Advocate for the OP.

ORDER

 

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant got his motor  cycle bearing registration No. HR-05Q-3064 insured from the OP vide insurance policy No.36838502 valid w.e.f 3.6.2008 to 2.6.2009 for an amount of Rs.31000/-. It has been further alleged that the said motor cycle was got stolen  on 6.6.2008. The complainant gave intimation on 100 Number (Police Control  Room) about the incident.  It was alleged that  when the complainant got no clue about the theft of the vehicle, then he got the FIR bearing NO.272 dated 27.6.2008 lodged u/s 379 IPC with the Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. The complainant lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the relevant documents but the claim of the complainant has not yet been paid which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint and has prayed that the OP be directed to pay the claim amount alongwith compensation for the harassment caused to him. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contents of the complaint alongwith   copy of the cover note, Copy of the repudiation letter and copy of the FIR.

 

2.                 On notice the OP appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and to try the present complaint.

 

                   On merits, it was contended that the complainant has neither given the intimation of the theft of the motor cycle to the OP nor lodged any claim immediately after the incident which proves that the incident is quietly doubtful. The complainant also did not submit any document regarding the total episode. Thus, it was contented that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and dismissal of the complaint has been sought. Sh.Pallavi Rai, Vice President of the OP has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the written statement.

 

3.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.                     Therefore, after going through 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 alleging deficiency on the part of the OP on the allegations that he got his motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-05Q-3064  insured from the OP w.e.f. 3.6.2008 to 2.6.2009 and during the subsistence of the said policy, the motor cycle was stolen on 6.6.2008 and the complainant reported the matter to the OP and thereafter FIR No.272 dated 27.6.2008 u/s 379 IPC was got registered  but the claim of the complainant has not been reimbursed to the complainant on the ground that there was delay in reporting the matter to the insurer approximately one month  as well as delay in giving intimation to the police of 21 days which has deprived  the OP to check and investigate the circumstances of the alleged theft.

 

 

 

 

                   The learned counsel for the OP has argued that the claim of the complainant has  been rightly repudiated because  that there was delay in reporting the matter to the insurer approximately one month  as well as delay in giving intimation to the police of 21 days which has deprived  the Ops to check and investigate the circumstances of the alleged theft. Admittedly the vehicle in question was stolen  on 6.6.2008 and the FIR No.272 has been lodged  with the police on 27.6.2008 after 21 days of the incident of theft. There was also delay in giving intimation to the  OP regarding theft of the vehicle and that’s why the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP.   However, keeping in view socio benevolent legislation and the law laid down by the Hon’ble  Apex court in case    Amalendu Sahoo Vs.OIC  Civil Appeal no.2703 of 2010   it has  to be held that in such like cases the claim can be granted on non standard basis   as per the guide lines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 OP to make the payment of 75% of the sum insured to the complainant. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2200/- towards compensation for the  harassment caused to him and for the legal fee and the litigation expenses. The OP 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

  5.03.2015                                                                 (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                         President,

                                                                         District Consumer Disputes  

                                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                  

                        (Subhash Chander Sharma)

                                        Member.

 

 

Present                   Sh.N.K.Zak Advocate for the complainant.

                             Sh.Y.P.Arora Advocate for the OP.

 

                             Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 5.3.2015.

 

Dated:

3.03.2015                                                         (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                                      President,

                                                                         District Consumer Disputes  

                                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                  

                        (Subhash Chander Sharma)

                                        Member.

 

Present                   Sh.N.K.Zak Advocate for the complainant.

                             Sh.Y.P.Arora Advocate for the OP.

 

                             Remaining 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

Dated: 5.03.2015                                                         (Subhash Goyal)

                                                                                      President,

                                                                         District Consumer Disputes  

                                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                  

                        (Subhash Chander Sharma)

                                        Member.