Haryana

Ambala

CC/32/2019

Parveen Sahni - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

N.K. Sawhney

10 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  32 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           :  05.02.2019.

                                                          Date of decision    :  10.01.2020.

 

Parveen Sahni aged about 46 years son of Shri Suraj Parkash Sahni, resident of House No.43-C, Ekta Vihar, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                       …. Complainant.                                                   Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited, 5406, IInd floor, Cross Road No.03, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt., through its Senior Branch Manager.

 

               ..…. Opposite Party

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Nitesh Sahni, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Ms. Priya Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’), praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To pay Rs.37,887/-, Insured Declared Value of the  Honda Activa bearing Registration No.HR-01-AN-8454 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f 30.12.2017 i.e the date of theft/loss till its realisation.  
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental torture and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.
   382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of Honda Activa having Registration No.HR-01-AN-8454. It was duly insured with the OP for the period from 08.04.2017 to 07.04.2018. The daughter of the complainant was studying at Chandigarh and on 30.12.2017, she parked the Honda Activa at the Scooter Cycle/Scooter Stand, Bus Stand, Ambala Cantt. In the evening on 30.12.2017 when her daughter reached at Ambala Bus Stand, she found her Scooter missing and she inquired about the same from the Scooter Cycle/stand Holder, but no satisfactory reply was given by him.  Thereafter, she called the complainant and he informed the matter to the police on the same day, as is evident from the document furnished by the Incharge of Police Post Lal Kurti Bazar, Ambala Cantt., but the police registered the FIR on 09.01.2018. Police could not trace the Scooter and submitted the untrace report, before the Hon’ble Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, which was duly accepted by the said Court.  On 30.12.2017, itself he also informed the agent of the OP, who told him to come in the office on next day i.e 31.12.2017. On 31.12.2017, he moved an application before the OP. The OP told him that after investigation by the police, claim will be settled. It was further told to him that the Surveyor, Mr. Shubham is out of station and he will come back within a day or two and after investigation by the said surveyor, the claim can be settled prior to the investigation of police. After 2-3 days, he again visited the OP and it was told to him to file an application again without mentioning the date. Surprisingly, OP issued a letter dated 29.08.2018, whereby the claim was repudiated on the ground that information was not given well within time to the police and to the OP. Despite of the fact that the scooter was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the OP intentionally repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction and cause of action. On merits, it is stated that the scooter of the complainant was duly insured with the OP for an IDV of Rs.37,887/-, with compulsory excess of Rs.100/-, for the period from 08.04.2017 to 07.04.2018.  Parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. No laxity is permissible either of the Insured or insurer. No details were given by the complainant as to at what time the theft took place and why there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. The FIR was lodged on 09.01.2018 i.e  after a delay of 10 days with the police Station, Parao, Ambala Cantt. which is not too far to reach on time. The information to the OP was given after a delay of 12 days from the date of theft of the scooter, as a result whereof the insurance company was deprived of its legitimate right to get inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the scooter and to make efforts to recover the same. No justification was given by the complainant for the delay in informing the police and the OP.  There is violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, thus no laxity will be given to the complainant in processing the claim.  There is no document on file which proves the version of the complainant that he intimated the police about the theft of the scooter on 30.12.2017. The OP received no intimation or application from the complainant till 11.01.2018, in any form. Neither there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP nor it has indulged into unfair trade practice. Therefore, the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit of K.K. Sachdeva, Senior Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP.  

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly, the scooter in question was stolen on 30.12.2017. Vide letter dated 29.08.2018, Annexure C-4, OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that intimation of the theft of the scooter was given to the police on 09.01.2018, after a delay of 10 days and to the insurance company on 11.01.2018, after delay of 12 days. The Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that complainant informed the police on the same day, when his scooter was stolen. To prove this fact he has placed on record, statement of Officer Incharge of the PS Parao, Ambala Cantt., Annexure C-2, wherein it has been stated that information regarding theft of the vehicle in question was given on 30.12.2017. This document has not been controverted by the OP. Thus, we find force in this contention of the Ld. counsel for the complainant that the complainant informed the police immediately after the theft of his vehicle. The Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that complainant informed the Insurance Company on 02.01.2018. To prove this fact the complainant has placed on record the copy of application, Annexure C-8. Whereas, Ld. counsel for the OP has contended that complainant had informed the OP about the theft of the vehicle on 11.01.2018, i.e. after a delay of 12 days from the date of theft, but to prove this fact no such document has been produced by the OP. Therefore, we do not find any force in this contention of the Ld. counsel for the OP.
Since, from the above referred documents, it is borne out that the complainant had informed the insurance company and the police well within time, therefore we are of the view that the OP was not justified in repudiating the claim on the ground of delay. As such we hold that the OP is not only liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him, but is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to him alongwith litigation expenses. From the policy document (Annexure C-5), it is evident that the insured declared value of the scooter in question is of Rs.37,887/-, therefore the OP is liable to pay Rs.37,887/- to the complainant alongwith interest.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP, in the following manner:-

1.           To pay Rs.37,887/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7%        per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e.        29.08.2018 till its realization.
2.           To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and        physical harassment suffered by the complainant
3. To pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.

                   The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid direction, within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the OP shall pay interest on the awarded amount @9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till its realization. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 10.01.2020.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member             President