Haryana

Karnal

CC/218/2018

Deepak - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Singh

15 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 218 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt.29.08.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 15.01.2020

 

Deepak son of Shri Sat Pal Singh resident of House no.718 Gali no.11, Karan Vihar, Karnal (Adhar no.4058  7260 2252)

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

National Insurance Company Limited, having its Divisional office at Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Surinder Singh Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Lal Singh Advocate for opposite party.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant got registered his Hero Motocorp Motor cycle bearing registration no.HR-05A-9366 with the OP, vide policy no.39010231156204061943, valid from 24.01.2016 to 24.01.2017. The IDV value of the vehicle was Rs.36,280/-. On 30.08.2016 the said motorcycle of the complainant was stolen and in this regard an FIR no.764 was got registered under section 379 of IPC in Police Station Sadar Karnal. Immediately, after the theft of the motorcycle complainant informed the OP and lodged the claim. Complainant also submitted the relevant documents with the OP. Thereafter, complainant requested the OP so many times to release the claim of the motorcycle but OP did not pay any claim to the complainant and lastly repudiated the same, vide letter dated 28.04.2017 for demanding some of the documents and second key of vehicle which were duly submitted to the OP. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has filed his claim on 19.09.2016 after lapse of 20 days and OP has informed vide registered letter dated 28.04.2017. The complainant has not fulfilled the documents i.e. RC, DL, Second key, copy of FIR, report under section 173 Cr.P.C. so in the absence of the above documents, the OP is unable to settle the claim of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not filed his explanation regarding registered letter dated 28.04.2017. It is further pleaded that the untraced report has not been accepted by the learned Illaqa Magistrate. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 07.08.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Reena Basak Ex.OPW1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence on 20.11.2019.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he got insured his vehicle bearing registration no.HR-05A-9366 with the OP, vide policy no.39010231156204061943, valid from 24.01.2016 to 24.01.2017. The IDV value of the vehicle was Rs.36,280/-. On 30.08.2016 the said motorcycle of the complainant was stolen and in this regard an FIR no.764 was got registered under section 379 of IPC in Police Station Sadar Karnal. After the theft of the motorcycle complainant informed the OP and lodged the claim. Complainant also submitted the relevant documents with the OP. Thereafter, complainant requested the OP so many times to release the claim of the motorcycle but OP did not pay any claim to the complainant and lastly repudiated the same, vide letter dated 28.04.2017 on the false ground.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OP, in brief, is that complainant has filed his claim on 19.09.2016 after lapse of 20 days and OP has informed vide registered letter dated 28.04.2017. The complainant has not fulfilled the documents i.e. RC, DL, Second key, copy of FIR, report under section 173 Cr.P.C. so in the absence of the above documents, the OP is unable to settle the claim of the complainant.

9.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question had been stolen during the subsistence of the policy. An FIR Ex.C4(OP4) dated 02.09.2016 was got recorded by the complainant. The vehicle in question was stolen on 30.08.2016. The claim of the complainant has been closed by the OP on the grounds mentioned as under:-

1. Complainant had intimated the OP on 19.09.2016 after delay of 20 days of theft.

2. Complainant has not submitted the original keys of stolen Bike.

3. Non-traceable report duly stamped and signed.

10.            Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant intimated immediately after the incident and police lodged FIR Ex.C4 after three days of the incident. The complainant has submitted untraced report Ex.C5 dated 18.11.2016. Original keys of the motorcycle also handed over by the complainant to the OP but OP intentionally and deliberately delay the genuine claim of the complainant.

11.            To wriggle out the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant initially tried to search the motorcycle at his own level and when the same could not be traced out the matter was reported to the police immediately. In authority Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Malan Nivruti Kamble and Anr. 2018(1) CPR 349 (NC) in which Hon’ble National Commission in para no.11 of the order has specifically mentioned that it is a common knowledge that a person who has lost his vehicle may not straightway go to the Insurance Company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle.

11.            Pre-contra learned counsel of the OP submits that complainant has given intimation to the OP after 20 days of theft and has not submitted the required documents to settle the claim of the complainant..

12.            On perusal of the record, it is proved that the complainant has completed all the formalities within time, but OP did not settle the genuine claim of the complainant. Thus, in view of the above, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

13.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.36,280/- as insured amount to the complainant  with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim  i.e. 16.07.2018 till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:15.01.2020                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member                         Member