Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 93.
Instituted on : 06.02.2012.
Decided on : 20.07.2016.
Munshi Ram s/o Sh. Bhala Ram s/o Same Singh r/o Ward No.5. Arya Nagar, Near Dev Petrol Pump, Meham, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. office at D-Park, Rohtak 1st Shehnai Banquet Hall, Civil Road, Opp. Mansarover Park, Rohtak Distt. Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.K.S.Dangi, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Yogesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant is owner of vehicle no.HR-99-FK/7430 which was insured with the opposite party vide cover note no.A58802109 with insured sum of Rs.264827/-. It is averred that the alleged vehicle was stolen by some unknown person from the possession of son of complainant who had parked the vehicle near a Choupal when he had gone to a marriage. It is averred that the intimation was given to the police on M-100 and also informed at P.S.Julana. It is averred that FIR No. 246 dated 02.12.2010 was registered in P.S.Julana. It is averred that intimation regarding the said theft was given to the opposite party who appointed the investigator. It is averred that complainant had also submitted the untraced report vide no.22-4/05.08.2011 but the opposite party had repudiated the claim of the complainant illegally on the ground that vehicle was not having any permanent registration at the time of its theft. It is averred that the act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint may kindly be allowed and opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.264827/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the claim has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 29.10.2011 as the complainant has violated the policy terms and conditions and Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle act. It is averred that as per MV Act vehicle be registered with registration Authority within 30 days, failing which vehicle cannot run on public place. In the above said case the said vehicle was not registered even after 135 days of purchase and due to the reason the illegal claim of the complainant has been repudiated. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case insurance and theft of vehicle is not disputed. It is also not disputed that after the theft complainant filed the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant that vehicle was not having permanent registration at the time of theft. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that the vehicle was applied for the permanent registration at the time of theft hence there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It is also observed that the case was fixed for settlement between the parties and as per statement dated 30.03.2016 the complainant is ready to receive the 50% amount of IDV. However compromise could not be effected between the parties.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that at the time of theft, complainant could not get the permanent registration certificate and he is ready to get 50% of IDV of the vehicle. As such it is directed that opposite party shall pay 50% amount of IDV of the vehicle Rs.264827/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 06.02.2012 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc. to the opposite party failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay further interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
20.06.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
