Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 579.
Instituted on : 18.10.2016.
Decided on : 15.11.2018.
Satbir s/o Ram Parkash r/o village-Sanghi, Teh & Distt. Rothak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited, Jawahar Market, D-Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ashok Kadian, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Deepak Bhardwaj Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant insured his vehicle bearing no.HR-12Z-2126 from the opposite party vide policy no.39010231156200820132 for a period from 26.05.2015 to 25.05.2016 for Rs.44085/-. That in the intervening night of 7-8/2/2016 the said motorcycle was got stolen while the same was parked in the house of the complainant. That complainant immediately informed the police and FIR No.76 dated 09.02.2016 was registered. The complainant also informed the OP within time. The police has filed the untraced report in the Hon’ble Court of Ms. Nidhi Solanki, JMIC, Rohtak which was allowed vide order dated 20.08.2016. That complainant submitted all the documents regarding the insurance claim but after passing a long period opposite party has not paid any amount to the complainant. That the opposite party vide its letter dated 19.09.2016 has repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that complainant has informed the company belatedly. That the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to pay the claim of Rs.44085/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that no claim is lodged by the complainant before the answering respondent in the said policy before filing the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that the contents of FIR and untraced report are matter of record. That no such information/intimation, was given to the answering respondent regarding the theft of the vehicle by the complainant. That no such repudiation vide letter dated 19.09.2016 was issued by the answering opposite party to the complainant. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence.
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 respondent has submitted that no claim is lodged by the complainant before the answering opposite party and he had not filed the policy particulars or other documents with the insurance company. So the claim of the complainant could not be settled. This fact has also been repeated in the affidavit filed by Sh. Atul Malhotra. Sr. Divisional Manager, NIC placed on record as Ex.RW1/A which had already been mentioned in the written statement.
6. At the time of arguments, complainant has placed on record 64VB Enquiry details Annexure CA regarding policy no.3910231156200820132 which was issued on dated 26.05.2015 to 20.05.2016. The Confirmation of 64VN Compliance-‘Annexure CB’ has also been placed on record. The main contention of respondent officials is that the claim was not intimated with the respondent insurance company. This fat is falsified through the above mentioned two documents i.e. Annexure CA and Annexure CB because these documents itself shows that the claim no.39010231166290163252 had already been registered with the insurance company on 19.09.2016. So the respondent officials tried to mislead the Forum and had filed an affidavit based on the wrong facts. Perusal of documents shows that vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of 7/8.02.2026 and FIR was got registered in P.S.Sadar on 09.02.2016. Untrace report has also been issued by the Ho’ble Court of Mr. Nidhi Solanki, JMIC on dated 20.08.2016 regarding the vehicle no.HR-12Z-2126. Regarding the delayed intimation to the opposite party, we have placed reliance upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula dated 20.09.2018 decided by Hon’ble Justice Nawab Singh titled as Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljeet Singh and order dated 20.08.2018 decided by Hon’ble Judicial Member Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary titled as Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs. Balwant Rai whereby the Hon’ble State Commission has held that: “It is very clear from the circular of IRDA that the insurance company cannot repudiate the bonafide claims on technical grounds like delay in intimation and submission of some required documents. The decision of insurers to reject a claim of the claimant should be based on sound logic and valid grounds. The limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute”. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the cases, it is observed that the act of opposite party of repudiating the claim of complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party to pay the IDV of the vehicle as shown in policy schedule Ex.C2 i.e. Rs.44085/-(Rupees forty four thousand and eighty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.10.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.11.2018.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
