Haryana

Kurukshetra

204/2017

Suresh Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

Kanwam Deswal

28 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.204 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 29.09.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:28.01.2019.

Suresh Pal son of late Shri Jai Singh, r/o Village Morthala, P.O. Dudhla, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office at Dr. Sahni Nursing Home, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra-136118 through its Branch Manager/concerned official.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Registered & Head Office at New India Assurance Building, 87, MG Road, Fort Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director/Manager. 

….Respondents.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Kanwal Deswal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. V.K.Garg, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Suresh Pal against New India Assurance Company, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant got insured his motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR07K-4033 make Bajaj CT 100 with the Ops vide policy No.35360231140100006481 for the period valid w.e.f. 08.03.2015 to 07.03.2016.  It is alleged that unfortunately on 22.04.2015, the motor-cycle was stolen from the area of Sector-10, Indira Colony, Kurukshetra and an FIR No.300 dt. 23.04.2015 under Section 379 IPC was lodged in P.S.City Thanesar.  Information regarding theft of said motor-cycle was given to the Ops.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay Rs.15,000/- for the loss of vehicle and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs 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 complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the theft of vehicle took place on 22.04.2015, but the complainant got lodged the FIR on 23.04.2015 and also did not inform the insurance company/answering Ops about the alleged theft within the stipulated period; that the answering Ops sent many letters including registered letter to the complainant for supply of some documents and information but the complainant did not supply the same.  Inspite of final notice, the complainant failed to supply the desired information and documents.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and Mark-C1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.           On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant got insured his motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR07K-4033 with the Ops vide policy No.35360231140100006481 for the period valid w.e.f. 08.03.2015 to 07.03.2016 and during the subsistence of the policy, the said motor-cycle was stolen on 22.04.2015.  He further contended that an FIR No.300 dt. 23.04.2015 was lodged in P.S.City Thanesar.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops but the Ops did not settle the claim of complainant

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops contended that the theft of motor-cycle took place on 22.04.2015 but the complainant got lodged the FIR on 23.04.2015 and did not inform the insurance company about the alleged theft within the stipulated period.  The other contention of Ops is that the Ops sent several letters dt. 15.12.2015, Ex.R1 and dt. 22.09.2015, Ex.R2 for supply of some documents but the complainant did not supply the same.  The counsel of Ops submitted an authority on the point of delay titled as Sajid Ali Vs. Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2018(3) CLT page 14.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  During the course of arguments on 24.01.2019, the complainant made statement that he had deposited the documents i.e. original insurance policy, final police investigation report duly certified by Judicial Magistrate and two keys of motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR07K-4033 in the office of Op No.1 after receiving the copy of untraced order.  So far as the delay is concerned, on this point we can rely upon the authority titled as Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance and another 2017(3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) page 758.  The authority submitted by the counsel of Ops is not disputed but the same is not applicable to the facts of instant case.  So, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint  and direct the Ops to pay Rs.9,000/- as insured amount of motor-cycle to the complainant and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges.  However, it is made clear that 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 Ops and further shall be bound to hand over the vehicle to the Ops immediately thereafter.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  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.: 28.01.2019.    

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.