Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 707

                                                          Instituted on     : 20.12.2019

                                                          Decided on       : 06.02.2023.

Deepak Dutta s/o Sh. Mahesh Chander Dutta R/o 237/10, Babra Mohalla, Rohtak.

                                                                             ………..Complainant.

Vs.

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

……….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:       Ms. Sapna, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Dr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he insured his Scooter Honda Activa bearing Registration No. HR-12N-5280 for a period from 12/03/2016 to 11/03/2017 from the opposite party vide policy No. 420600/31/15/6200003199 and duly paid amount of premium.

The alleged vehicle was stolen from front of his house on dated 02/03.11.2016. The complainant informed the police on 03/11/2016 and submitted his complaint to P.P Gaukaran, Rohtak. Thereafter, FIR no. 740 dated 04/11/2016 was got registered by the police. The opposite party was also duly informed by the complainant and claim was got registered by the opposite party vide claim no.420600/31/16/6290000097. Complainant submitted all the documents as desired by the opposite party and applied for insurance claim of the vehicle. After some days, the insured vehicle of the complainant was recovered by the police but same was in a totally damaged condition. The survey was conducted and the loss was also assessed by the surveyor. Thereafter the complainant contacted the opposite party personally and telephonically and requested them to settle the claim but no proper response was given by them. It is further submitted that complainant was shocked when he received a letter dated 11.01.2018 on the flimsy grounds. Complainant contacted the officials of the opposite party and they assured him that they will reconsider the matter and settle the loss. But after passing a sufficient long time, the officials of the opposite party have not settled the claim of the complainant.  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.21,000/- i.e. sum insured alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of theft till its disbursement to the complainant, also to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.22,000/- as 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 intimation regarding theft dated 03.11.2016 received on 04.11.2016 and they took immediate necessary action and appointed investigator for investigation who submitted his investigation report dated 06.12.2016 but after few days another intimation dated 16.12.2016 for the same insured vehicle has been received with the information that the insured vehicle had recovered in damaged condition and complainant lodged claim for damages, they again appointed the surveyor and he submitted his report and assessed the loss for an amount of Rs.15,400/- on “Net of Salvage basis without RC”. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant also submitted his consent letter for an amount of Rs.14,000/- as full and final amount of settlement on net of salvage basis without RC. Thereafter perusal of claim file and verification of the documents of the insured/complainant, the competent authority of the insurance company issued letter to the complainant with the contents that “In reference to above claim as the engine number found JC44E1152337 which is not matching with engine no. as per RC as per Survey report, the claim is rejected and closed as ‘No Claim’ which may please be noted”. As per terms and conditions of the policy the claim of the complainant is not payable, therefore the complainant is not entitled for any claim from opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong & denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 28.10.2021. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 and has closed his evidence on dated 25.02.2022.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties.  The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R12 on the ground that engine no. found JC44E1152337 is not matching with engine number as per RC. In this regard it is observed that as per survey report Ex.R3, the activa in question was recovered by the police in damaged condition and the engine number was not matching with the engine number mentioned in the RC. To prove the same opposite party has placed on record letter Ex.R8 and verification report Ex.R9. Perusal of the letter issued by the surveyor Ex.R8 and R.C. particulars Ex.R9 shows that the Engine no. of the vehicle of the complainant was JC544E0550432 whereas the engine number of the recovered vehicle was JC44E1152337. Meaning thereby the vehicle of the complainant was not recovered by the police. As the vehicle which was recovered by the police was in damaged condition, so the complainant could not recognize the vehicle and only after verification of RC it came to the notice that the vehicle recovered by the police was an another vehicle. The insurance company itself proved this fact in their evidence. Hence the complainant is entitled for the theft claim under the policy and opposite party is liable to pay the IDV of the vehicle to the complainant. As per policy Ex.R1, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.21000/-

6.                In view of the fact and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.21000/-(Rupees twenty one thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.12.2019 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to submit form no.29-30, letter of subrogation, indemnity bond with the insurance company within 15 days. 

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:

06.02.2023.

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

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

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

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Vijender Singh, Member.