Brief facts of the case is that the complainant is a registered owner of a motorcycle bearing Regd. No.OD-09P-2950 and had purchased the same from Pritam Enterprises, Dhangadapada, Keonjhar on 23.06.2021. After purchase of the aforesaid motorcycle the complainant has registered it in the office of the ARTO, Barbil on 27.06.2021. The said motorcycle is a Honda Shine Motor Cycle and its cost was Rs.73,278/-. After purchase of the motor cycle complainant through the dealer has insured the same with opposite parties. And after receipt of full premium amount Opposite party has issued insurance policy certificate of said vehicle which covers the premium of own damage as well as liability premium towards third party and PAC cover etc and valid period of the said policy was  from 23.06.2021 to 22.06.2022. The complainant had handed over the said motor cycle to his son-in-law Pradeep Kumar Naik, Jhumpura, Keonjhar. On 24.08.2021 while Pradeep Kumar Naik son-in-law of complainant was staying in his rented house at HatimaraChhaka and kept the Motor cycle on the Varanda with proper lock, but unfortunately the said motor cycle was stolen away by somebody from his Varanda. After stolen of the vehicle the son-in-law of the complainant has lodged FIR at Bamebari Police station on 17.09.2021 regarding theft of the motor cycle. After lodging FIR at Bamebari Police Station the complainant has also informed theft of his motor cycle to the insurance company who received his complain on 28.09.2021. After receipt of claim vide No.C230021241873 in respect of vehicle No.OD-09P-2950. On 28.09.2021 the Ops deputed a surveyor to verify the loss. But in fact no surveyor from the Ops have ever been visited to the house of the complainant or his son-in-law on till today. The complainant has paid full payment of Rs.5145/- at the time of purchase of the motor cycle.

So the complainant prayed for payment of  the claim amount Rs.69,624/- along with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of theft along with Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and litigation cost.

The complainant relied on the following documents to prove his case:-

1. Tax Invoice photo copy
2. Registration certificate of the vehicle photo copy
3. Photo Copy of Insurance Policy Certificate.
4. Photo Copy of FIR.

Under the above circumstances the complain case is admitted and notice issued to Ops. Op1 and 2 appeared and filed their written version.

Op1&2 insurance company submitted in their written version that based on information received from complainant this opponent had issued a Two Wheeler Bundled Policy bearing No.2312204188773300001 for vehicle bearing No.OD-09P-2950 covering interest of complainant for the period from 23^rd Jun 2021 to 22^nd Jun 2022. On 28^th Sept 2021 after inordinate delay of 35 days this opponent received an intimation from the complainant towards theft of his vehicle by unknown miscreants on 24^th Aug. 2021. After receiving the intimation one investigator was appointed to conduct investigation. The complainant has not followed the conditions No.1,5 and 9 of the policy. The Ops has not made any deficiency of service to complainant. The complainant has not entitled to get any compensation.

The Ops has filed following documents to prove his case

1. Insurance Certificate with all the Insurance manual of HDFC IRGO General insurance
2. FIR Copy of complainant Photo Copy.
3. Copy of Citizen Portal.
4. Copy of corporate Risk Solution.

Learned advocate of the complainant filed written note of argument in where he submitted the vehicle bearing registration No. OD-09P-2950 motor cycle was insured with Ops and it was valid from dt.23.06.2021 to 22.06.2022 and the said vehicle was stolen on 24.08.2021 the FIR was lodged at Bamibari PS on dt.17.09.2021 after 25 days of theft he also submitted that due to delay intimation and non submission of required documents the claim was repudiated. To substantiate this case Ops has cited the case of DharmendarVs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.TAC-2022(3) SC=38 “Mere delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured”.

The Ops also filed written argument and states that on 28.09.2021 the intimation was sent to Op company regarding theft after 35 days  admitted that the policy was valid during the time of theft of the vehicle. Despite delay one investigator was appointed namely Corporate Risk Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The investigator could not submit his report due to non-support of complainant. He cited a decision of NCDRC in Devender Kumar Verma Vs. Oriental Insurance R.P. No.2416 of 2013 decided on 12^th Aug.2013. in where “the state commission and the District Commission have not committed any illegality at irregularity in arriving at the conclusion for dismissing the said complainant. There is also no reason to agree with the contention at the petition that the claim should have been allowed at least on non-standard basis. It is quite apparent from the letters sent by the surveyor to the petitioner that the Insurance company and the surveyor tried their level best to obtain the requisite documents from the petitioners, but he did not take adequate interest in supplying the requisite information.

From the above pleadings this commission framed following issues to decide the case

1. Whether the case is maintainable?
2. Whether any cause of action arises on this case?
3. Whether Ops have made any deficiency of service?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for?

FINDINGS

All the issues are interlinked with each other so they are discussed jointly. It is a fact that the aforesaid vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-09P-2950 Honda Shine Motor Cycle was stolen on dtd.24.08.2021 from house Veranda of Sri. Pradeep kumar Naik, son-in-law of Registered owner on dtd.17.09.2021 FIR was lodged and after due investigation the Bamebari Police filed FF vide Bamebari PS FF No.167 dt.22.12.2021 with to return the case as FRT No.Clue U/s 379 IPC. And if there will be any clue obtained in future the case will be re-opened. After 25 days of theft the FIR was lodged but on dtd.28.09.2021 intimation was given to Ops after 35 days. Delay in intimating to the insurance company regarding the theft cannot be aground to deny the claim of the insured as for the citation filed by complainant Dharmender Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (TAC-2022 (3) SC=38).

After the intimation to ops the Ops appointed an independent investigating agency namely Corporate Risk Solution Pvt. Ltd. Cuttack who submitted a letter on dtd.20.01.2022 saying that due to non-cooperation of the complainant they could not complete the investigation of theft claim vide claim No.C2300212441873 but it is very doubt that without taking any photographs and without obtaining any signature from parties they have made only official work and repudiated the claim which is a deficiency of service by Ops. On the other hand it is very much required to see whether theft claim of insurance shall be considered on non-standard basis. It is required to see procedural manual of motor claims shall be considered on non-standard and shall be settled as indicated below after recording the reason.

Sl. No        Description                                                  Percentage of Settlement

1. Under declaration of                               Deduct 3 years difference in

licensed carrying capacitypremium from the amount

of claim or deduce 25% of claim

amount, whichever is higher.

2. Overloading of vehicles beyond                           Pay claim not exceeding

Claim licensed carrying capacity75% of admissible.

3. Any other breach of warranty/                         Pay up to 75% of admissiblecondition of policy including claim.limitation as to use-

This claim comes under pay up to 75% of admissible claim for breach of condition that is theft of vehicles on non standard basis.This commission feels that the Ops Company has not investigated the matter properly and simply repudiated the claim and the complainant was mentally harassed by the negligent work of ops.So the complaint case is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to get the compensation as sought for.

ORDER

The complain case is allowed on contest the Ops are directed to pay complainant the 75% of IDV value of the vehicle bearing registration No. OD-09P-2950 on non-standard basis within 45 days of receipt of the order. It is further directed that Ops company shall pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses to complainant.

If Ops company fails to comply the order within stipulated period it shall carry 9% interest on total amount till realization.