Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 321.

                                                          Instituted on     : 26.08.2020

                                                          Decided on       : 30.07.2024

Rajesh Kumar age 39 years son of Samme Ram resident of H.No.101 village KiloiKhas Tehsil and District Rohtak.

                                                                             ………..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Outer Quilla Road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                             …….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. 

                   Sh.Attar Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                                                ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that  he is registered  owner of a motorcycle  bearing registration No.HR-12U-5036and the same was fully insured with the respondent vide policy No.39010231176203829376 for the period from 18.01.2018 to 17.01.2019. On 10.12.2018 in the morning the complainant was going to Kota from RohtakRailway station and as such he had parked his motorcycle at Railway Station Rohtak. When on 13.12.2018, he came back from Kota to Rohtak , the said motorcycle of the complainant was not found there and the same was stolen. Therefore, FIR No.0106 was got registered by the complainant on dated 14.12.2018 at P.S.GRP, Rohtak.  Complainant lodged his claim with the opposite party and submitted the documents with the office of opposite party but till today, the claim of the complainant has not been paid. Opposite party has rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the date of actual theft is not confirmed.  The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.70115/- i.e. Rs.20115/-as claim and Rs.50000/- for causing harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that Sh. Kailash Kumar Investigator was deputed by the opposite party to investigate the said theft case. His report revealed that complainant has parked the motorcycle in front of Railway Station at Rohtak in “NON PARKING ZONE’ for 3 days.  In this situation there is negligence on the part of insured/complainant and the same is breach of terms and condition no.4 of the policy. It is further submitted that as per the statement of the complainant to the surveyor and in the FIR, he returned back on 13.12.2018 from Kota and FIR was done on 14.12.2018. But as per railway ticket he went to Kota from Rohtak on 10.12.2018 and returned on 11.12.2018 which is misrepresentation on the part of insured and there is delay to inform the police as well as to the opposite party. All the above facts show that there is violation of the terms and condition no.1 & 4 of the policy and law. So, claim of the complainant is not payable and treated as “No Claim”. There is no deficiency in service in settling the claim by the opposite parties.  All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainantavailed sufficient opportunities for adducing the evidence of complainant but failed to adduce his evidence and the evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 30.11.2022 of this Commission. Ld. counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on dated 28.02.2024. 

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written submissions filed by complainant as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present case claim of the complainant has been filed by the insurance company as ‘No claim’ on the ground that complainant has violated the condition no.4 of the policy. As per respondent officials they have deputed an investigator namely Kailash Kumar to investigate the case. As per his report, complainant  parked his vehicle in front of Railway Station in ‘Non Parking Zone’ for 3 days. So there is negligence on the part of insured/complainant himself and he is not entitled for the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that for the violation of terms and conditions of the policy, whole claim cannot be denied. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition no.1394 of 2015 titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd., &Anr. Vs. Binod Kumar Singh decided on 13.09.2017, whereby it is held that: “Considering the violation of terms and conditions of the policy/warranty etc., payment of 75% of the claim on ‘non standard’ basis was in accordance with law and absolutely fair to the complainant”. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  in 11(2010) CPJ 9 (SC) titled AmalenduSahoo Vs. OIC has also held that: “Terms of policy violated-Claim repudiated by insurer-Repudiation of claim in toto unjustified-Settlement of claim on non-standard basis directed”. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the repudiation of whole claim by the opposite party is illegal and unjustified and the complainant is entitled for the claim amount on non-standard basis after deducting the 25% amount from the IDV of vehicle. As per policy Ex.R4, IDV of vehicle is Rs.20115/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for Rs.15086/-(Rs.20115/- less 25%).

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.15086/-(Rupees fifteen thousand and eighty six only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.26.08.2020  till its realization and shall also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) aslitigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.  

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

30.07.2024.

                                                         ........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

.........................................

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member.