Haryana

Kurukshetra

214/2017

Mohit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco-Tokio - Opp.Party(s)

K.K.Sirsla

10 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.214 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 10.10.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:10.05.2018.

Mohit Kumar son of Virender Kumar, resident of House No.1481, Sector-13, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.
2. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office: IFFCO Sadan C1 District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. K.K.Sirsla, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Mohit Kumar against Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant got insured his motor-cycles bearing registration No.HR07S4779 with the Ops vide policy No.94683051 dt. 26.10.2015 for the period valid w.e.f. 26.10.2015 to 27.10.2015.  It is alleged that the said motor-cycle was stolen on 14.08.2016 in the area of Mohan Nagar, Sirsla Road, Kurukshetra.  The complainant approached the Police Station City Thanesar on the same day and the police lodged the FIR on 16.08.2016.  Information regarding theft of said motor-cycle was given to the Ops.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 09.01.2017.  The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal.  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 Rs.33,875/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that on receiving intimation from the insured/owner regarding loss of motor-cycle, the Ops vide letters dt. 24.08.2016, 15.09.2016, 30.09.2016, 06.10.2016 and 18.10.2016 asked him to provide untraced report certified by SHO Police but the insured did not submit the requisite documents to answering Ops, so, the answering Ops closed the claim file of complainant vide letter dt. 09.01.2017.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

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

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant got insured his motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR07S4779 with the Ops.  It is not disputed that the said motor-cycle was stolen during the subsistence of the policy.  The only dispute between the parties is that as per the Ops, the complainant did not submit the untraced report and on the said ground, the Ops closed the claim file of complainant but on perusal of case file, it is clear that the untraced report is proved on the file as Ex.C3.                                         

7.             So, in these circumstances, the complaint of complainant is allowed and the Ops are directed to make the payment of insured amount i.e. Rs.33,875/- to the complainant.  In case the vehicle is recovered in future and is handed over to the complainant, he shall be bound to transfer the RC of the vehicle in favour of the Ops and further shall be bound to hand over the vehicle to the Ops immediately thereafter.  The order; be complied within the period of two months.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:10.05.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member