BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                   Complaint No.: 256 of 2016.

                                                                   Date of Institution: 14.12.2016.

                                                                   Date of Decision:  09.05.2019.

Karan Kaushik son of Shri Virender Kaushik, resident of village Bapora, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

..….Complainant.

                                      Versus

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Circular Road, opposite Civil Hospital, Bhiwani.

…...Opposite Party

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.

Present:       Shri J. Dhanda & Shri AK Vashisth, Advocates for complainant.

Shri Avinash Sardana & Shri SK Ghanghas, Advocates for OP.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   Brief facts of the care are that the complainant was owner of a Motor Cycle Hero Honda Splender Pro No.HR16L-7525, which was insured with the OP vide Policy No. 35380131130100001255 w.e.f. 23.9.2013 to 22.9.2014 for Rs. 36,000/-.  It is alleged that the vehicle in question was stolen by some unknown person on 10.9.2014, when it was parked near the District Court, Bhiwani and FIR No.385 dated 12.9.2014 was lodged with P. S. Civil Line, Bhiwani. It is further alleged that the motor cycle was not found and the policy has filed untraceable report before the Hon’ble court of Shri Sandeep Yadav, ld. JMIC, Bhiwani on 30.8.2015.  It is further alleged that the complainant has applied for claim vide No.31/14/63, but OP company demanded some documents vide their letter dated 29.12.2014, which was submitted by the complainant on 29.12.2014.  It is further alleged that the complainant has requested many times to the OP for payment of claim, but to no effect and on 7.10.2016 OP has verbally informed that the claim has been repudiated by the company and a registered letter has already been sent in this regard, but complainant never received such type of letter from the OP.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that on receipt of intimation about the theft of motor cycle of complainant, the OP deputed Shiva Claims Bureau, Bhiwani for investigations and they submitted their report dated 4.10.2014 concluding that the complainant did not produce the DL and he also did not park the motor cycle at the motor-cycle stand of the court complex.  It is further alleged that on receipt of the report of investigation the complainant was called upon vide letter dated 7.10.2014 to supply the photo copy of DL, but he failed to supply the same.  It is further alleged that reminder dated 11.12.2014 and 29.12.2014 were issued requiring him to supply the DL, final untraced report and NCRB report, so that his claim may be processed, but he failed to supply the same and as such his claim file was closed as “No Claim” and he was informed accordingly.  Hence, in view of the above facts, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the duly sworn affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to C10 in evidence and closed the evidence.

4.                Ld. Counsel for the OP has placed on record duly sworn affidavit as Annexure RW1/A and documents as Annexure R1 to R6 and closed the evidence. 

5.                We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                Ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that all requisite documents were submitted with the OP, but they did not pay the claim to the complainant deliberately.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed his reliance upon RP No. 625 of 2007, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Riyajuddin, decided on 1.7.2015 by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

7.                Ld. Counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the written statement.  Ld. counsel for the OP has argued that complainant has not submitted the requisite documents despite issuance of letters to him and thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Ld. counsel for the OP has placed his reliance upon FA No.304 of 2006, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Rajendra Pal Singh, decided by the Hon’ble Uttarakhand State Commission, Dehradun vide order dated 17.7.2008.  But the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case due to peculiar facts & circumstances

8.                After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserve acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is admitted fact that the vehicle in question was got insured by the complainant with the OP w.e.f. 23.9.2013 to 22.9.2014.  It is also admitted fact that the vehicle in question stolen by some unknown person on 10.9.2014 i.e. during the operation of policy.  Now question arises whether the complainant is entitled to get the claim of the insured vehicle. The sought answer is “Yes”.  The only plea taken by the OP is that the complainant has not supplied the requisite documents i.e. copy of DL, copy of final report and NCRB report.  On the other hand, complainant has placed on record copy of untrace report as Annexure C3, copy of NCRB report as Annexure C5, copy of DL as Annexure C2.  Thus, in our view, the repudiation of claim by the OP is not justified, because the vehicle was parked when it was stolen and there is no need to consider the plea of non-holding the driving license.  Now, the question arises whether the possession of valid DL in case of theft of vehicle is relevant or not?  The sought answer is “No”.  In our view, in case of theft of vehicle, the fact that the owner of vehicle was not having valid DL is of no importance.  Thus the issue of not having valid DL by the complainant is of no consequence in the present case. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed his reliance upon case law titled as UIIC Vs Riyajuddin, in which Hon’ble National Commission has held that: -

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b)-Insurance-Theft of vehicle-Driving licence-Validity-Surveyor appointed-Claim repudiated-Deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint holding that since vehicle was stolen when it was parked at Tempo stand, there is no need to consider plea of non-holding of driving licence-State Commission dismissed appeal-Hence revision-Insurance company accepted value of vehicle at Rs.3,55,000/- and fixed premium based on this price-Fresh plea regarding this not acceptable at revision stage-Repudiation not justified”.

          Therefore, in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, we are of the view that in the present case also the complainant is entitled to get full insured amount i.e. Rs.36,000/-. 

9.                Moreover, the Insurance Companies deliberately with malafide intention does not settle the claim of its consumers in time and harassed them without any reason.  So in our view the complainant is also entitled for compensation on account of mental and physical harassment & punitive damages for deficiency in service & mal trade practice on the part of the Insurance Company. Therefore, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above, complaint is partly allowed and the OP is directed:-

i)        To pay insured amount of Rs.36,000/- (Thirty six thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its final realization.

ii)       To pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service & mal trade practice on the part of OP and punitive damages.

iii)      To pay Rs.7,000/- (Seven thousand only) as counsel fee as well as the litigation charges.

          The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: - 09.05.2019.               

(Saroj Bala Bohra)                    (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                     Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.