Date of decision : 20.3.2008<br /> Sarabjit Kumar son of Amir Chand, resident of 439, Model Town, Kapurthala.<br /> Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1. The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Senior Divisional Manager, Gobind Nagar, G.T. Road, Jalandhar.<br /> 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, D.C. Chowk, Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala.<br /> Opposite parties.<br /> Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Quoram : Sh.A.K. Sharma President.<br /> Sh.Surinder Mittal, Member.<br /> Present : Sh.B.S. Rath counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh. Mohit Kapoor counsel for opposite parties.<br /> JUDGMENT ( SH.A.K. SHARMA PRESIDENT.)<br /> Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Sarabjit Kumar against the New India Assurance Company Limited through its Senior Divisional Manager, Gobind Nagar, G.T. Road, Jalandhar and also through its Branch Manager, D.C. Chowk, Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala opposite parties seeking direction against the opposite parties for claiming insurance amount of Rs.13000/- alongwith interest regarding theft of his motorcycle and monetary compensation for mental tension and physical harassment on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. Brief facts in the complaint lie in narrow compass. Complainant purchased a Motor Cycle hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No.CH-01-X-2004 Model 1998 from Janesh Sharma son of Govind Sharma and said motor cycle was registered in his name with District Transport Officer Kapurthala on 4/12/02. It is further alleged that on 6/10/06 when he parked his motor cycle at V Mart Complex, near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar, the same was stolen by some miscreant and complaint was lodged with the Police Station of Division No.4 Jalandhar vide FIR No.271 dated 6/10/06. His motor cycle was already insured with the opposite parties through its branch office at Kapurthala. He informed both the opposite parties about theft of his motor cycle and claimed insurance amount of Rs.13000/- alongwith all requisite documents but the same was rejected by the opposite party Insurance Company and closed file. Therefore, repudiation of his justifiable claim for insurance by the Insurance Company has been assailed as illegal, arbitrary and without any reason for which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared and controverted allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. It is pleaded that Insurance Company had written letters dated 21/12/06, 28/2/07, 30/4/07, 21/5/07 and 31/5/07 to supply the Company non traceable certificate and transfer of registration certificate in the name of the Company but he failed to comply with the said requirements; so Insurance Company was left with no alternative except to close the file as no claim and repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 22/6/07. Therefore, there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company so as to entitle the complainant to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant Sarabjit Kumar has produced in evidence affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C7.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to R6.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has assailed repudiation letter Ex.C6 dated 22/6/07 as illegal, arbitrary and unjustifiable in respect of the insured vehicle i.e. Heor Honda motor cycle bearing registration No. CH-01-X-2004 Model 1998 vide insurance policy Ex.C7 for the period 21/3/06 to 20/3/07. Though on the other hand repudiation of the insurance claim has been justified due to apathy on the part of the complainant in filing the requisite documents vide letters Ex.R2 to R5 to settle the insurance claim . On considering respective contentions of learned counsel for th parties, we find the claim of the complainant as plausible conditions of the Insurance Company herein referred to below. The insurance of the vehicle bearing registration No. CH-01-X-2004 Model 1998 vide insurance policy Ex.C7 is not disputed for the insurance amount of Rs.13000/-IDV. Complainant alleged that his vehicle was stolen FIR No.271 dated 6/10/06 was also lodged with the police Division No.4, Jalandhar and intimation about the lost vehicle was also sent to the opposite parties. Registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant vide RC Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 is duly proved and also FIR Ex.C5. The defence plea taken up by the opposite parties is about non traceable certificate and for transferring of registered vehicle in the name of Company; so as to settle his claim as per its letters Ex.R2 to R5. Therefore, controversy no more survives with the observations that Insurance Company shall pay the insurance amount of Rs.13000/- IDV minus permissible deduction of depreciation charges to the complainant subject to transfer of the vehicle in the name of the Company and non traceable certificate by way of affidavit as rightly claimed by the Insurance Company within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file b e consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 20.3.2008 Member President.