Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 454.
Instituted on : 13.11.2013.
Decided on : 14.09.2016.
Jitender s/o Sh. Krishan Hooda, resident of 132 K.V. Power House colony,G-II-33, Near Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak, Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office-1, Outer Quilla Road, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.B.S.Kataria, Advocate for the complainant.
Smt. Geeta Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he got his vehicle no.HR-12K-8060 insured with the opposite party company vide policy no.420600/31/12/6200001793 dated 08.09.2012. It is averred that on 15.09.2012 the complainant had gone to Faridabad to meet his brother Satinder and left his motorcycle there as he was to leave for Agra. It is averred that unfortunately the above said motorcycle was stolen from Faridabad on 19.09.2012 while parked outside the house of his brother. FIR No.364 dated 21.09.2012 was lodged by the complainant. Complainant also submitted the required documents as desired by the opposite party by way of letter dated 08.03.2013. The said motorcycle stood duly locked by way of lock which the complainant had replaced vide bill no.3 dated 10.08.2012 from M/s Hooda Service Centre, Rohtak. It is averred that the opposite party insurance company wrote further letter dated 15.03.2015 to the complainant seeking his explanation regarding the new lock purchased by him and fitted in the motorcycle which the complainant duly replied. It is averred that the claim of the complainant has been illegally repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 28.03.2013. . It is averred that complainant requested the opposite party to disburse the lawful claim of the complainant but till date the opposite party has not disbursed the claim of the complainant inspite of repeated requests and visits. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the theft claim of stolen motorcycle alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is denied that all the requisite and relevant documents were submitted to the company. The complainant had not given any reply of letter dated 15.03.2013. It is averred that the complainant had replied the letter dated 14.3.2013 whereby he had mentioned that he had changed the main lock of the motorcycle vide bill no.3 dated 10.08.2012 from Hooda Servie Centre Rohtak. Thereafter the surveyor appointed by the company had verified the lock bill and had recommended that the bill cannot be accepted as correct and as per norms. It was observed by the company in the claim documents that vehicle was stolen on 19.09.2012 from Faridabad and the keys submitted by the claimants seems new keys and unused. The original keys of the motorcycle in question were never submitted by the complainant to the company. Lock bill submitted by the complainant found not correct as per norms and on the basis of above the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 28.03.2013. As such the vehicle was left without care which is violation of general conditions of the policy. It is averred that the opposite party had rightly repudiated the claim. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and has closed her evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed. As per certificate of insurance Ex.C1, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party and the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.20375/-. After the theft, complainant filed the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R2 dated 28.03.2012 had repudiated the claim on the ground that: “After investigation lock bill submitted by you found not correct as per norms and the claim is not tenable under the purview of motor policy”.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has only been repudiated by the opposite party on the basis of report of surveyor as per which it is submitted that the lock bill was not genuine. In this regard it is observed that the lock was purchased by the complainant on dated 10.08.2012 vide bill Ex.C6 and the theft had taken place on 19.09.2012. It is also observed that the affidavit of the surveyor/investigator has not been placed on record by the opposite party to prove that the bill was not genuine. Moreover all the other documents e.g. copy of FIR, copy of NCRB report, copy of untraced report etc. have been placed on record by the complainant to prove the theft of vehicle. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2011-4PLR titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma whereby Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that : “Insurance companies are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium-Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other”, as per 2008(3)CLT 377 titled Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that: “If a particular claim to compensation is possible on the material on record, it should not be denied on hypertechnical pleas that claim was limited by complainant to a lower amount” and as per AIR 2004 SC 5088 Savita Garg Vs. Director, National Heart Institute whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “The Consumer Forum is primarily meant to provide better protection in the interest of the consumers and not to shot circuit the matter or to defeat the claim on technical grounds”. 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 claim by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party shall pay the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.20375/-(Rupees twenty thousand three hundred seventy five only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.11.2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc. to the opposite party failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay further interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. 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:
14.09.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………….
Ved Pal, Member
