O R D E R
K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.DL-9S-W-9257, Motor Cycle make Hero Honda Passion and the said vehicle was insured by the O.P for a sum of Rs.43,035/- vide policy No.35100731106201499270 for a period effective from 07.11.2010 to 06.11.2011. It is alleged that unfortunately the above said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person on 22.11.2010 and complainant immediately informed the Police and FIR was registered in P.S. Kharkhoda, (Haryana) vide FIR No.273/2010. It is further alleged that the Police officials tried their level best to search the above said motor cycle but could not succeed and untraced report dated 02.07.2011 issued by the concerned S.H.O., P.S. Kharkhoda, (Haryana). It is alleged that on the same day i.e. 22.11.2010 the complainant informed the O.P regarding the theft of the above said vehicle and a claim was registered. It is further alleged that the complainant supplied all the required documents to the O.P as per their demand. It is alleged that after supplying the documents the complainant keep on visiting the office of the O.P during its official hours asking for the claim cheque but no favorable response was received from the side of the O.P. The complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 19.09.2011 to the O.P but to no avail. On these facts complainant prays that O.P be directed to pay the entire claim amount of Rs.43,035/- along with interest and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.P appeared and filed its written statement. In its written statement, O.P has not disputed that complainant had taken policy referred to above. It is also not been disputed that the above said motor cycle was stolen and intimated to O.P in this regard. It is alleged that the complainant lodged his claim on account of theft of his above mentioned Motor Cycle and immediately Er. Rajinder Kumar Mittal, Govt. Approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed to assess the loss of the complainant. It is further alleged that the surveyor duly investigate the matter and filed his survey report dated 20.05.2012, which is mentioned as under:
“During my investigation from insured, he shown me only one key and told that the second key has been stolen. I took photograph of the key and advised the insured to deposit the said key with the insurer at the time of settlement of the claim.
Now, insured has submitted two keys to the insurer of the stolen vehicle and on verification of the keys, I found that both these keys are different from the key, which was shown by the insured at the time of my investigation…………”
It is alleged that the insurance company vide its letter dated 22.03.2013 duly informed the complainant that his theft claim has been repudiated as the said claim was filed by using wrong and fake means regarding one missing key the complainant tried to mislead the O.P to get the claim. In the end it has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence affirming the facts alleged in the complaint and has also proved the documents exhibited as Ex.CW-1/A to Ex.CW-1/G. On the other hand Sh. Rakesh Talwar, Sr. Divisional Manager, has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. Sh. Ravindra Kumar, A.O., National Insurance Co. Ltd. has also filed his additional evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of O.P. Parties have also filed their respective written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission of Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
5. The main controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the repudiation by insurance was proper or not. Needless to say that the insurance company while relying on the report of surveyor namely Er. Rajinder Kumar Mittal, Govt. Approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor dated 20.05.2011 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the two keys handed over by complainant pertaining to stolen vehicle were different from the key which was shown by the insured at the time of investigation. Thus the repudiation followed due to non-availability of the ignition key of the stolen vehicle. It will not be out of place to mention here that the surveyor after investigation found the claim of the complainant genuine, he has also visited the place of theft, verified the registration of FIR and the untraced report accepted by the Judicial Magistrate. He has also found that all the documents demanded by the surveyor were produced by the complainant. He also concluded that there was no delay on the part of the complainant to report the matter to the Police and to the insurance company. Despite the aforesaid facts that the surveyor found that the claim of the complainant was not justified. The O.P in its own wisdom rejected the claim by taking frivolous ground of non-submission of key of the motor cycle. It is now well settled law that the availability of key of the stolen vehicle would not come in the way of repudiation of the claim if otherwise found justified or valid.
6. In the present case the circumstances under which the vehicle is alleged to have been stolen are known to both the parties. Admittedly the vehicle was stolen when the complainant had gone to answer the nature call on the road side and in the meantime someone fled away with the vehicle. In these circumstances to call for deposit of key of the motor cycle would be unwarranted and unjustified. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the repudiation was unjustified and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. We, therefore, direct OP to pay the sum assured i.e. Rs.43,035/- with interest @ 6% from the date institution of the complaint till payment, with further award of Rs.5,000/- towards harassment, mental agony, loss of time and litigation cost.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 30th day of April, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
