Haryana

Kurukshetra

137/2018

Amit Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco-Tokio - Opp.Party(s)

Kanwar Ji Sharma

08 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                        Complaint Case No.137 of 2018.

                                        Date of institution: 19.06.2018.

                                        Date of decision: 08.03.2019

 

 

Amit Gupta son of Shri Puran Chand, resident of House No.580/69, Laxman Colony, thanesar, District Kurukshetra.                                                      …Complainant.

                        Versus

Iffco-Tokio, General Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Sector 17, Krurukshetra.

….Respondent.

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

 

Present:     Sh. Kanwarji Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for opposite party.

               

(ORDER)

                The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OP). 

2.             Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is registered owner of a Motorcycle Pulsar 220SF bearing registration No.HR07-P-8715, Chassis No.MD2DHDKZZTCG82812, Engine No.DDKGBTG860107 of the model 2010.   It is further alleged that the said vehicle was insured with OP vide policy No.50246737 for the period 22.02.2017 to 21.02.2018. It is further alleged that motorcycle had stolen by somebody on 15.4.2017 and the same was not traced out of his best efforts.  A FIR No.351 dated 14.5.2017 was lodged in the Police station City Thanesar and the police also filed the untraced report before the court on dated 18.01.2018.  It is further stated that he informed the OP regarding the accident and lodged its claim with the Op vide claim No.37052050 and on lodging of the claim the Op deputed Mr.R.N.Sharma to investigate the matter and sent his report.  It is further alleged that after completing entire formalities, but Op repudiated his claim and file was closed as subject no-claim.  It is further alleged that he visit the office of OP again and again but he did not paid any heed.  A registered notice on dated 15.3.2018 was also served to the Op.  It is further alleged that that the repudiation letter is totally null and void and not binding on his rights.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay the total damage of Rs.41,040/- and further to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges.  Hence, this complaint.    

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed with ulterior motives; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that the complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in the law;  that the this Forum has no jurisdiction; that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of the parties and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. On merit OPs have also denied all the contents of the complaint and plead that there is deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is without merit and same be dismissed with costs.

 4.            Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure CW-1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op has made a statement that he received no objection certificate and two keys of motorcycle.   

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

7.             Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that motorcycle was stolen by someone on 15.4.2017.  He has made a complaint to the police and FIR was lodged in this respect and un-trace report of this vehicle is also Ex.C-2.  He has informed the OP about the incident, but the company has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

 8.           Ld. Counsel OP argued that there is delay of 2 days in the FIR.  The next contention raised by the Op is that complainant has not comply the requirements inspite of repeated reminders vide letter dated 26.10.2017, 1.12.2017, 20.1.2018 and 15.2.2018. He again argued that complainant has not supplied the keys of the vehicle and no objection certificate from the finance company because the said vehicle was insured by Bajaj Finance Company. After the arguments learned Counsel for the complainant made a statement before the Forum and supplied the keys of the vehicle to the OP and also supplied the no objection certificate to the Op. On perusal of the file it is clear that vehicle was stolen by someone and FIR was lodged by the complainant.  Un-trace report is also on the file.  There is deficiency on the part of OP.     

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP is directed to pay the amount of Rs.41,040/- to the complainant within 30 days, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:08.03.2019.                                           (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                     President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.