Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 437
Instituted on : 02.09.2019
Decided on : 13.02.2023.
Smt. Meena Kumari age 36 years, wife of Darshan, resident of village Kahni -12-1/2 Biswa(78) Tehsil and Distt. Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd., COPE Minar Core-3, 2nd Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, service be effected through its Divisional Manager, Outer Quilla Road, Rohtak.
- M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd., Gohana Distt. Sonipat through its Branch Manager.
.......……….Opposite parties.
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 Beniwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.S.Malik, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that she is the owner of the vehicle-Motor cycle bearing Chassis no. MBLHAW08XKHF26295, Engine no.HANAHF02461, Temp. Registration no. HR-12/TMP/2019/11649, which was got insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. vide policy no. Cert. no. 39010231196200832011 for the period 5.7.2019 to 04.07.2025 and IDV value of the said insured vehicle is Rs.52820/- as per insurance policy. The said Motor cycle was got insured(financed) with M/s Hero Fincrop Ltd. The complainant has applied for registration of said motorcycle on 9.7.2019 with the Registration authority concern vide application no.HR19070925598343. That on 31.07.2019 the son of the complainant Nitesh had gone to New HDC, Plot no.120, Rohtak at 9.00 AM on the said motor cycle and Anuj Kumar son of Ram Mehar was driving the said motor cycle. He parked the motorcycle outside the company, when at 7.00 P.M. Nitesh came back then aforesaid insured vehicle/motor cycle of the complainant was not found there and got stolen. Nitesh tried his best to trace out the said motor cycle but could not find out, then he intimated immediately to the police on number 100 regarding the theft of said Motor cycle and police also could not find out the said vehicle and then FIR no. 537 dated 3.8.2019 u/s 379 IPC PS City, Rohtak was registered regarding theft of the said vehicle by the police. The complainant intimated to official of respondent no.1 within time verbally as well as in writing about the theft of said insured vehicle and lodged her claim for the stolen vehicle with all required documents and had app1ied for disbursement of the genuine claim amount of said vehicle. The complainant visited to the office of the respondent no.1 a number of times to get his genuine claim but the respondent no.1 kept abeyance to settle the claim and not disbursed the claim amount to the complainant. However, on 29.8.2019 respondent no.1 refused to accede the request of the complainant. The respondent no.2 who has financed the said motor cycle is pressurizing the complainant to pay the installment amount with excess rate of interest. The act and conduct of respondent no.1 of not paying the claim amount of complainant is illegal and against the natural justice. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party No.1 may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount IDV value of Rs.52,820/- of said vehicle to the complainant along with interest @18% p.a. from its accrual till actual realization, to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and harassment suffered by complainant and also to pay Rs. 11,000/- an litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 did not appear despite service of notice through registered post. As such opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.10.2019 of this Commission. Opposite party No.1 in their reply has submitted that complaint is premature due to non submission of documents as mentioned in letters dated 20.02.2020 and 27.02.2020. In the absence of the said documents opposite party No. 1 is unable to settle the claim. But the complainant instead of submission of documents, opted for filing the present complaint. As such complaint is pre-mature and not maintainable at this stage. The OP. No. 1 is ready to settle the claim on submission of documents mentioned in letter Dt. 20/02/2020 and 27/02/2020 along with latest NCRB Report and other formalities which are required in theft case. It is further submitted that the Motor Cycle No. HR-12 TEMP/2019/11649 was insured from 05/07/2019 to 04/07/2024. The said motorcycle was theft on 31/07/2019 and intimation was sent to the OP. No.1 on 05/08/2019. There is delay of 5 days regarding the intimation of alleged theft to the OP. No.1 of said motor cycle. The FIR was lodged on 03/08/2019, as such there is delay of 3 days in registration of FIR to the police. It can be fatal, as in the meantime, said motorcycle could have traveled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and also sold to the scrap dealer, (Kabari). This is a case of collusive disposal. On merits, it is submitted that the said motorcycle was not registered on the date of alleged theft, it is violation of terms and conditions of policy and M.V. Act-1988. The FIR was lodged by Nitesh s/o Sh. Darshan Singh who was driving the said motorcycle but later on Anuj Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Mehar has been shown as a driver. The D/L of Anuj has been provided in the office of opposite party after many requests but D/L of Nitesh has not been provided to the opposite party. So, insured has tried to suppress the material facts of the case. Hence complaint is not maintainable. That non co-operation and non-submission of the requisite documents itself is violation of terms and conditions of policy and law. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. No.1. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex. CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and closed his evidence on dated 06.11.2020. Learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, document Ex.R2 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on dated 18.08.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, opposite party No.1 has not settled the claim of the complainant and has demanded some documents as mentioned in letters dated 20.02.2020 and 27.02.2020. The contention of ld. counsel for the opposite parties is that the motorcycle in question was stolen on 31/07/2019 and intimation was sent to the OP. No.1 on 05/08/2019. There is delay of 5 days regarding the intimation of alleged theft to the OP. No.1 of said motor cycle. The FIR was lodged on 03/08/2019, as such there is delay of 3 days in registration of FIR to the police. In this regard it is observed that as per copy of FIR Ex.C1 dated 03.08.2019, the intimation was given to the police on No.100 on the same day i.e. 31.07.2019. Hence there is no delay on the part of complainants in lodging the FIR. We have also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Civil Appeal no.653 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 in case titled as Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., whereby Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that: “When insured lodged FIR immediately after theft of a vehicle occurred and when police after investigation have lodged a final report after vehicle was not traced and when surveyors/investigators appointed by insurance company found claim of theft to be genuine, then mere delay in intimating insurance company about occurrence of theft cannot be a ground to deny claim-Lodging of FIR on same day theft occurred-Therefore, denial of claim set aside”. The alleged law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted by the opposite party that the said motorcycle was not registered on the date of alleged theft. In this regard complainant has also placed on record copy of R.C receipt Ex.C3, which shows that the vehicle in question was registered on the date of theft. The other plea taken by the opposite party is that FIR was lodged by Nitesh s/o Sh. Darshan Singh who was driving the said motorcycle but later on Anuj Kumar has been shown as a driver. The D.L. of Nitesh has not been provided to the opposite party. In this regard it is observed that in the present case the vehicle in question was stolen and not met with an accident. The submission of D.L. of driver has no nexus with the cause of theft. Hence the demand of alleged document is not tenable. The other plea taken by the opposite party No.1 is of untraced report. In this regard, complainant has placed on record document ‘Annexure-JN-A’ i.e. case detail of FIR No.537 of 2019 P.S.City Rohtak i.e. certified copy of order of untraced report. The perusal of this document shows that the proceeding in the case has been disposed of by the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak on 06.01.2023. Another document is also attached herewith as and ‘Annexure-JN-B’, which is a certified copy of order dated 06.01.2023. Hence from the documents placed on record by the complainant, it is observed that all the documents have already been placed on record by the complainant and also supplied to the opposite party No.1. Though there is delay of intimation to the company, for which whole claim of the complainant cannot be denied. As such complainant is entitled for 75% claim on sub-standard basis. As per policy Ex.R6, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.52820/-. Hence opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.52820/- less 25% i.e. Rs.39615/- to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.39615/-(Rupees Thirty nine thousand six hundred and fifteen only) and shall also pay a sum of Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within 45 days, failing which opposite party no.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.39615/- from the date of order till its realization to the complainant. However complainant is directed to complete the formalities i.e. to submit indemnity bond and subrogation letter and signed form no.29-30, in favour of the company within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party No.1 shall comply with the order dated 13.02.2023 of this Commission.
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:
13.02.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
