Haryana

Kurukshetra

90/2017

Banti Kashyap - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

Janak Singh

04 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.90 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 26.04.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:04.05.2018.

Banti Kashyap son of Shree Chand, resident of Village Bazidpur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

National Insurance Company Limited Railway Road, Kurukshetra-136118, through its Senior Branch Manager. 

….Respondent.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Janak Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Rajive Gupta, Advocate for the OP.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Banti Kashyap against National Insurance Company Ltd., the opposite party.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant got insured his vehicle Hero Splender Pro bearing No.HR09D/0758 with the Op vide policy No.39010231156204921300 for the period valid w.e.f. 22.03.2016 to 21.03.2017.  It is alleged that on 31.08.2016 the said vehicle was stolen near Devi Lal Park Pipli and intimation was given to the Op.  AN FIR bearing No.0452 dt. 01.09.2016 was lodged in P.S. Sadar Thanesar under Section 379 IPC.  The police failed to trace the motor-cycle of the complainant and untraced report was submitted in the court of Hon’ble A.C.J.M., Illaqa Magistrate, Kurukshetra.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op refused the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 21.02.2017.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Op to pay the insured amount of Rs.25,200/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the claim of complainant was rightly repudiated on the ground that “Claim for theft of vehicle not payable if theft not reported to company immediately of its occurrence” and in the present case, the vehicle of complainant was allegedly stolen on 31.08.2016 and the same was reported to the insurance company on 05.09.2016 i.e. after a delay of 5 days.  Moreover, the intimation to the police was given on 01.09.2016 i.e. after a delay of 1 day of the alleged occurrence.  Further the complainant has not submitted the second original key of the motor-cycle in question with the Op and as such, the complainant himself was negligence; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             As per Ex.C3, the claim of the complainant has been rejected only on two grounds firstly that the complainant was not having another key and secondly that the intimation of theft was given to the company on 05.09.2016, whereas the theft took place on 31.08.2016 and the FIR was lodged on 01.09.2016.  Certain law points has also been referred by the ld. counsel for Op in this regard.  Firstly there is an order of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arun Kumar Singh and another bearing revision petition No.1054 of 2016 decided on 03.01.2017 in which it was held that on perusal of complaint, we find that it is a case of the complainant that he reported the theft of subject vehicle to the concerned police station on the same day and gave oral information of theft to the petitioner-insurance company.  It is not the case of complainant that he gave immediate intimation of theft of vehicle in writing to the insurance company.  We have gone through the above-said order.  The same is not applicable to the facts of present case.  In the present case, it is not alleged that the oral intimation was given.  Moreover, it cannot be said that it is essential that the complainant should have both the keys in his hand at the time of theft. 

7.             So, in these circumstances, the complaint of complainant is allowed and the Op is directed to make the payment of insured amount i.e. Rs.25,200/- to the complainant.  In case the vehicle is recovered in future and is handed over to the complainant, he shall be bound to transfer the RC of the vehicle in favour of the Op and further shall be bound to hand over the vehicle to the Op immediately thereafter.  The order; be complied within the period of two months.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:04.05.2018. 

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member