Haryana

Kurukshetra

244/2016

Rahul Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco-Tokio - Opp.Party(s)

Aditya Sharma

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.     

                                                                 Complaint no.244/16.

                                                        Date of instt: 1.9.16.

                                                        Date of Decision: 21.03.2018.

Rahul Sharma son Ramesh Kaushik resident of C-371, Sector-29, Jindal City, Kurukshetra.                                                                                                                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Vs.

 

1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office IFFCO House, 3^rd Floor, 34, Nehru Palace, New Delhi, through its authorized officer.
2. Shiva Goyal care of Best Brokers, SCO No.86, 2^nd Floor, Near Indian Bank, Sector-17, Kurukshetra.

……Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before            Sh. G.C. Garg, President.

                     Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

 

Present :         Sh. Aditya Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                      Sh. J.K.Wadhwa, Adv. for Op No.1.

                      OP No.2 ex parte.

                            

ORDER

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rahul Sharma against IFFOCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant purchased Yamaha FZ16 motor cycle from Lalit Kumar and the complainant is real owner of the above said motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-01AB/7630 for which the complainant hold a fully valid effective insurance policy bearing No.92893320 through Op No.2 which was valid up to 19.6.2016. The OP No.2 agent of OP No.1 duly verified all the documents of the motor cycle and after verifying the same, he issued the above said policy in the name of complainant. Unfortunately, the above said insured vehicle was stolen on 24.2.2016 near House No.1667, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra and FIR No.141 dated 25.2.2016 under Section 379 IPC was registered with the concerned police station.  The complainant informed the Ops about the theft of above said motor cycle to the registration authority, Kurukshetra. The complainant again and again visited the police authorities for locating the vehicle to find out the thief, who has stolen the vehicle but they showed their helplessness in this regard. The complainant requested the Ops to settle his claim for theft of insured vehicle and the Ops asked to submit the untraced report. The complainant after receiving the untraced report submitted the same for final settlement but they lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and finally closed the claim by saying that the vehicle is registered in the name of Lalit Kumar. The Ops have wrongly mentioned that the complainant had sold the vehicle to Mr. Lalit Kumar, rather the complainant told the Ops that he purchased the vehicle from said Lalit Kumar and registering authority Ambala had already issued no objection certificate in this regard and presently the complainant is real owner of the vehicle and he had lodged the claim rightly. The complainant visited the office of Ops and requested to pay the insured amount but they did not pay any heed. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, the present complaint has been moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to pay Rs.40,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation charges.

3.             Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-01AB/7630 as there is not an iota of any evidence that the complainant was owner of the vehicle as on the alleged date of theft i.e. 24.2.2016; that the complainant has left with no cause of action as the answering OP after going through the claim file, has already  repudiated the claim as after going through the relevant papers submitted by the complainant, it was found that the complainant has no insrable interest in the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-01AB/7630 as on the alleged date of theft; that the alleged vehicle stood registered in the name of Lalit Kumar son of Krishan Singh.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.             OP No.2 has failed to come present despite service and as such, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 10.10.2016.

5.             Both the parties have led their evidence to support their version.

6.            We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.             No doubt, the vehicle in question is registered in the name of Lalit Kumar son of Kishan Singh, but it is on record that the said Lalit Kumar had sold the said vehicle to the complainant Rahul Sharma.  A theft was committed of the said vehicle when it was in the hands of Rahul Sharma.  In such like circumstances, the complainant Rahul Sharma is entitled to the insured amount of Rs.40,000/-.

8.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the complaint of complainant is allowed and the Op No.1 is directed to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant.  Let the order be complied within two months, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization and penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.1.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:21.03.2018.                                                   (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member