Haryana

StateCommission

A/186/2015

KARAMBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.GHANGAS

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      186 of 2015

Date of Institution:      02.03.2015

Date of Decision :       12.08.2015

 

Karambir Singh s/o Sh. Tek Ram, Resident of Village Kandela, Tehsil and District Jind.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office, SCO No.23-24, 3^rd Floor, HUDA Grounds, Jind, District Jind, through its Branch Manager.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Sandeep Singh Ghangas, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal has been filed by unsuccessful complainant to set aside the order dated December 23^rd, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Jind, whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      Karambir Singh-complainant (appellant herein) got his motor cycle, bearing registration No.HR-31G-8165, insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-opposite party from April 26^th, 2012 to April 25^th, 2013, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-5). The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) was Rs.41,515/-.  During the intervening night of October 8^th/9^th, 2012, the motor cycle was stolen in the area of Bharat Hotel, Gosain Khera, District Jind. The Police was informed immediately. F.I.R. No.171 (Exhibit C-2) was lodged in Police Station, Julana on October 12^th, 2010. The complainant also gave intimation to the Insurance Company. Untraced Report (Exhibit C-4) was submitted by the Police and the same was accepted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind vide order dated April 12^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-7).

3.      The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it repudiated the claim vide letter dated October 16^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-6) stating that there was delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. and 16 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company. So, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant.

4.      Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.      The Insurance Company-Opposite Party, contested the complaint by filing reply denying the averments made in the complaint and reiterating the fact stated in the repudiation letter (Exhibit C-6).

6.      The issue for consideration is as to whether the Insurance Company was justified in denying complainant’s claim on the ground stated in the repudiation letter or not?

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has argued that immediately after the incident, the Police of Police Station, Julana, District Jind, was informed. But instead of lodging the F.I.R., the Police directed the complainant to trace out the motor cycle at his own level. The Police registered F.I.R. on October 12^th, 2012. This fact has been so recorded in Exhibit C-14, that is, the application submitted by the complainant to the Insurance Company. No evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to rebut this fact.

8.      In view of the above, it is abundantly established that immediate information was given to the Police but the Police recorded the F.I.R. on October 12^th, 2012. Therefore, the delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be attributed to the complainant. Untraced Report (Exhibit C-4) was submitted by the Police and the same was accepted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, vide order dated April 12^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-7).  In this view of the matter, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the benefits of insurance to the appellant-complainant. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the cogent and convincing evidence available on the record.

9.      As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and by allowing complaint, the Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.41,515/-, that is, the Insured Declared Value of the motor cycle to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realization.

10.    The complainant is directed to execute the letter of subrogation, to hand over the keys of the motor cycle and transfer the Registration Certificate in the name of the Insurance Company and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose.

 [[[

 

Announced 12.08.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL