Anil Kumar complainant has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay the claimed amount of Rs.58,350/- which is the IDV value of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in services and Rs.10,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he got insured his L.M.V. car bearing registration No.HP-38-A-4521, Chassis No.SB308-IN-1776816, Engine No.F8BIN-2466648, with the opposite party. The period of insurance cover was from 5.07.2012 to 4.07.2013 as such he is the consumer of the opposite parties. However, on 23/24-11-2012 midnight, the car was stolen when the vehicle was parked after locking it outside the house. When the next morning he found out that someone has stolen his vehicle/car. All the documents of the vehicle in original were also in the vehicle and stolen with vehicle. He tried to find the vehicle but failed to trace it. After that he approached the police and reported the matter about the stolen of vehicle. Nothing has been recovered by the police. After that the police got registered the FIR No.94 dated 13/12/2012. He has further pleaded that the opposite party sent one reminder letter dated 27.11.2012 to him and in the letter demanded some documents which were already submitted with them and even raised some vague queries which has been duly replied by him through registered post.  Even as per requirement of opposite party the intimation of theft has been duly given to the DTO and the required documents sent to the opposite party. In spite of completing all the required formalities his claim has not been paid by the Insurance Company and they are demanding the Closure report which is not in his possession. Opposite party illegally demanded the Closure report from him. In fact police take years to file Closure report and as per terms and conditions of the policy in case of theft there is need to give immediate information to police and company. The information to the police as well as to the company has been duly given immediately. Moreover untraced report alongwith other documents have been submitted with opposite party well within time. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party who failed to make the payment of claim amount of Rs.58,350/- IDV value of the vehicle.  Hence, the present complaint was preferred with the prayed relief as herein above.

3.       Upon notice the opposite party no.1 appeared and filed the written reply through  its counsel by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable because the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. Admitted as per terms and conditions of the policy of insurance the insured is required to inform about the loss immediately upon its occurring. In this case the theft of the insured vehicle took place on night 23-24 November 2011, whereas the information regarding the loss was given to the police on 13.12.2012. Hence, the complainant/insured is not entitled to any compensation. The complainant was asked to supply closure report of the case by the police, which is a vital document. The complainant has not even bothered to reply the letter. On merits, it was submitted that report of loss of car due to theft was lodged with the police after 19 days which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.  Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed.

4.        Opposite party no.2 filed its written reply through its counsel by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is without any merits and without any cause of action, no cause of action ever accrued to the complainant against the replying respondent; the complainant has failed to set out any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and the present complaint is without any cause of action. The complainant has no fit case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as defined in the section 2 (1) (O) & ® of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, it is submitted that the replying opposite party never issued any reminder letter dated neither 27.11.2012 nor the respondent has any knowledge regarding the averments made by the complainant. The opposite party never demanded any document from the complainant nor the opposite party has any knowledge regarding the averments made by the complainant.  The opposite party has no concern in the settlement of the insurance claim of the complainant as such the replying respondent has no knowledge in respect of the averments made by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2 as the replying respondent has no concern whatsoever in respect of the settlement of the insurance claim. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed.

5.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C1 and of Tirath Ram Ex.C2 alongwith other documents Ex.C3 to ExC12 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Tarsem Lal Sr. Divisional Manager N.I.C. Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence.

7.     Counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Amrik Singh DGM Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence.

8.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.       We observe that the prime reason for repudiation of the present insurance claim has been the delay in intimating to the opposite party insurers of the theft and lodging the F.I.R. with the Police Authorities besides non submission of the necessary documents in time alongwith the insurance claim. However, we find from the material available on the records of the proceedings that the complainant has lodged the D.D.R. on the very next day of the theft and he had no control over the delay caused by the police authorities in lodging the subsequent F.I.R. once he has intimated them of the theft the very next day through D.D.R. on record. Further, the opposite party insurers have themselves admitted as per the Ex.C5 that they received the intimation on 27.11.2012 of the theft of 23.11.2012. Thus, the repudiation of the otherwise a valid insurance claim has been done arbitrarily by the opposite party insurers and the same amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  The learned counsel for the opposite parties has quoted judgments of Hon’ble  Superior Courts  on the point of delay in intimating the theft to the police authorities. These are no.1 F.A.No.52 of 2014 Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T.Chandigarh, 2) R.P. No.4176-4177 of 2012 &  3) R.P.No.2951 of 2011  of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and 4) 2010(3)CLT 1 (SC)=11(2010)CPJ9(SC). We have gone through these judgments and have noted that the factum of delay in all these cases have been from 4 to 11 days whereas in the present complaint there has been no delay since the intimation of theft was made to the police authorities on the same day and the related D.D.R. was issued the next day.

10.     In the light of the all above, we hold the opposite party insurers guilty of deficiency in service and thus ORDER them to settle and pay the impugned insurance claim in full (to the complainant) besides Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of copy of these orders, otherwise the aggregate amount shall attract interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of the present orders.       

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.  

   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                       President.

ANNOUNCED:              (G.B.S.Bhullar)                  (Jagdeep Kaur)

January 16,2015.                         Member                                     Member.

*MK*