Haryana

Sonipat

CC/86/2015

AZAD SINGH S/O JIYA RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. CHAHAL

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.86 of 2015

                                Instituted on:13.03.2015

                                Date of order:19.11.2015

 

Azad Singh son of Jiya Ram, resident of village Chhatehra, tehsil Gohana, Distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Gohana through its Branch Manager, Gohana, Distt. Sonepat.

                                                     …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. BS Chahal Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Ajay garg, Adv. for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

DV Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of the motor cycle bearing no.HR-11F/1308 which was insured with the respondent for the period 8.11.2013 to 7.11.2014 for Rs.43369/- and unfortunately, on 29.1.2014, the said motor cycle was stolen by some one and FIR no.19 dated 2.2.2014 u/s 379 IPC was lodged. The complainant submitted all the required documents alongwith copy of FIR for the payment of the claim amount, but the respondent refused to pay the claim amount vide letter dated 25.6.2014. The complainant has alleged this action of the respondent to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant. At the time of lodging FIR, the complainant alleged that he was in use and occupation of the motor cycle when the same was stolen, but when he lodged the claim and gave an intimation with regard to the theft of motor cycle, he state that motor cycle in question was in the custody of Mukesh, his nephew.   Kailash Kumar investigation asked the complainant to submit the ignition key of the motor cycle, but he failed to hand over the same. The said investigator found that there is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus, the respondent rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 25.6.2014.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent has wrongly and illegally repudiated the legal and genuine claim of the complainant for which he was entitled to.  He has further submitted that the complainant has not violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in any manner.  The respondent is liable to make the payment of the claim amount as the theft of the motor cycle has taken place during the validity of the insurance policy.   He has further submitted that intimation regarding the theft of the motor cycle was given to the police on the same day and this fact has also been admitted by the surveyor in his report.  In support of his contention he has relied upon the case law titled as New India Ass. Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Kaur and others, 2015(3) CLT page 477  wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that Delay in FIR-the complainant cannot be held responsible for the time taken by the police in registering the FIR-He discharged his contractual obligation under the policy for informing the concerned police station.

          On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant. At the time of lodging FIR, the complainant alleged that he was in use and occupation of the motor cycle when the same was stolen, but when he lodged the claim and gave an intimation with regard to the theft of motor cycle, he state that motor cycle in question was in the custody of Mukesh, his nephew.   Kailash Kumar investigation asked the complainant to submit the ignition key of the motor cycle, but he failed to hand over the same. The said investigator found that there is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus, the respondent rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 25.6.2014.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          In the present case, the motor cycle was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 8.11.2013 to 7.11.2014 and the theft of the same has taken place on 29.1.2014 i.e. during the validity of the insurance policy.  The complainant lodged the FIR with the concerned police station on 2.2.2014.  But the document R5 shows that the intimation regarding the theft of motor cycle was given to the police by the complainant on the same day i.e. 29.1.2014, but the police sent VT only and lodged the FIR after three days i.e. on 2.2.2014.  On this point, the law of the Hon’ble National Commission cited by the learned counsel for the complainant is fully applicable to the case in hand.  So, in our view, the repudiation of the claim on lame excuse is not tenable in the eyes of law.  The complainant is entitled to get the claim amount in respect of his stolen motor cycle.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.43,000/- (Rs.forty three thousand) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:19.11.2015