ORDER                                                                                                                                                            Dated:  08-08-2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1. Complainant has filed this complaint on 03.7.2015 and alleged that his motorcycle No. DL-13-SK-8962 modal 2011  was insured with the OP for the period 30.8.2012 to 29.8.2013. On 24.10.2012 at 2.00 PM his motorcycle was stolen.He lodged complaint by calling at number 100 accordingly an FIR no.340/12 dated 27.10.2012 was registered. Thereafter, an untraced report was filed on 2.12.2012. Complainant intimated the OP on 26.10.2012 about the theft.  OP demanded some documents vide letter 10.12.2012 and 4.4.2013 for the settlement of claim. Accordingly, he filed documents but OP did not settle this claim despite legal notice dated 27.9.2014.   Hence this complaint with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- along with compensation and cost of litigation.
2. In reply OP admitted that  vehicle of the complainant was insured with OP for a sum of Rs. 35,000/-and denied rest of the allegations and clarified that despite so many reminders complainant did not file details of  call on 100 number on 24.10.2012 , NCRB report,  Report of 173 Cr. PC and affidavit in regard to second key.   OP also objected the delay in registering FIR.  OP further clarified that OP never repudiated the complainant’s claim.  Hence, complaint be rejected with cost.
3. The complainant filed rejoinder and objected the reply filed by OP. 
4. In support of complaint, complainant filed his affidavit and documents Ex. CW1/A  to Ex. CW1/G and opposite party filed affidavit of Mr.  V.K. Bhatia Assistant Manager of OP .

5.  We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and  oral arguments.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?

( c) Relief?

6.As OP has admitted that vehicle of the complainant was insured   with OP is well supported with the document Ex. CW1/A., therefore, it is evident and proved that the complainant is a “consumer”.

7.On 24.10.2012, theft was reported to the  police and thereafterFIRU/s 379IPC was lodged in which police filed an untraced report Ex. CW1/C on 27.10.2012.  Facts report Ex. CW1/D clarify that intimation of above theft was sent to the OP on 26.10.2012.    As it is apparent that it was a case of theft of  insured vehicle and only requirement was a complaint lodged by the complainant and result of the investigation , therefore ,   demand of the documents by opposite party vide letters dated 10.12.2012 , 04.04.2013, 06.01.2014 , 11.11.2013,11.02.2014  is not justified.  In our considered opinion , theft of the insured vehicle was timely reported to the OP and OP has delayed the decision in respect of the claim filed by the complainant for such a long time is deficiency on the part of OP. 

       9.  Hence, looking to the above facts and circumstances, we direct OP :-

 (i)    To pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/-  to the complainant .

(ii)   To pay a sum of  Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation.

10.It is further directed that complainant will complete the formalities  and  submit his subrogation letter in favour of OP and indemnity bond  at the time of receipt of the amount.

This order shall be complied with by OP within a period 30 days failing which an interest of Rs. 10% per annum will be payable on whole above amount from the date of this order till payment to the complainant. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this ……………..