Complainant Parshotam Kumar vide the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay his claim of Rs.50,000/-  alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till its actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- for harassment, mental agony and financial loss to him alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.          The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a comprehensive policy for his Maruti car, Model 2003 bearing Registration No.PB-54-A-8365  for Rs.50,000/- and paid the premium of Rs.2474/- and the opposite party issued Package Policy (Private Vehicle) from its Delhi Office. The opposite party issued Motor Policy-cum-certificate of Insurance bearing No.35101031136133191021 which was valid from midnight 27.05.2013 to 26.05.2014 midnight. Hence he is consumer of the opposite party. His car was stolen in the intervening night of 08/09.07.2013 while it was parked in front of Kodu Mal, Dharamshala, G.T.Road, Gurdaspur and he informed to the S.H.O. Police Station City Gurdaspur on 9.7.2013 vide application and also to the opposite party. The news of this theft was also reported in the Daily Newspaper.  The police investigated the matter through their investigation officer Sh.Jagdev Singh ASI, P.S.City Gurdaspur as he was already investigating the theft mentioned in FIR No.182 dated 30.08.2012 and Jagdev Singh made a report on 9.7.2013 that the offence U/s 379 of IPC is there and it co-relates with the offence in FIR No.182 of 30.08.2012, which was registered on the statement of Ajay Kumar son of Vijay Kumar, resident of Chowki Road, Adarsh Colony, Pathankot regarding theft of his motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-35-L-2259 make Hero Honda Splendor at Police Station Gurdaspur. The untraceability report regarding the Maruti car was submitted by the then S.H.O. Gurdaspur Sh.Gurdeep Singh on 24.9.2014. A certificate of untraceability was issued to him on 8.12.2015 by I/C Police Station Saanjh Kendra City Gurdaspur and he also submitted to the opposite parties. He fulfilled all the formalities and submitted all the documents to the opposite parties as and when required but the opposite party has not settled his claim and did not intimate the status of the claim till date. This act of the opposite party is deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint.

3.         Upon notice, the opposite parties insurer appeared through their counsel and filed their written version taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; the complaint is not within limitation and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant may be directed to produce the original policy on file. No claim has ever been filed. The facts regarding the policy can only be admitted if the complainant produces the original policy on file. It was wrong that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 8/9.7.2013 as alleged. The complainant may put strict proof of it. No intimation has been given to the insurance company and as such the insurance company lost its right to early investigate the matter. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.           Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CWI/A along with the other documents exhibited as Ex.C1 to Ex C5 and closed the evidence.

5.       On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Parveen Chadha Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.

6.         We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record for its contained statutory merit and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some of the documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the OP insurer’s alleged non-settlement of the complainant’s stolen Car’s theft-claim at the OP insurer’s end. We, further find that in order to prove his theft-claim, the complainant has duly filed his affidavit Ex.Cw1/A along with the other supporting documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. 

7.       On the other hand, we find that the OP insurers have simply pleaded/ deposed vide its written reply/affidavit Ex.OP1 that as per their records the complainant has not yet filed the requisite theft-claim nor has even intimated the ‘theft’ that otherwise need be mandatorily intimated immediately after the alleged ‘incident’ of loss thus the instant claim deserves to be dismissed on this count, only. Perturbed, at the above pleadings of the OP insurers, the complainant has put forth that it has been none of his fault if the police authorities did not expedite the filing of the FIR upon receipt of his theft-intimation right on-time. And, in order to legally validate his above contention he has cited the final orders of the honorable NCDRC, New Delhi in RP # 629 of 2015 titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Gurmeet Kaur & others 2015 (3) CLT confirming the legal proposition (paragraph 6): “The clause in the insurance policy require to give immediate intimation of accident, but did not require the Insured to give immediate intimation of any loss (including by way of ‘theft’) of the vehicle to the insurance company”. We respectfully concur with the above proposition as laid out by the honorable NCDRC but it shall not assist the complainant in the absence of ‘theft-claim’ having yet to be filed with the insurers.

8.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the complainant to file the requisite theft-claim complete with all documents etc with the OP insurers within a period of 15 days of receipt of the copy of these orders and who (the OP insurers) in turn are directed to settle the same on priority but within a maximum period of 30 days of its receipt. The parties shall however bear their own costs, here.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                                                                              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                        President   

Announced:                                                              (Jagdeep Kaur)

December 27, 2016                                                         Member

*MK*