BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                      Complaint No.:314 of 2014.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 17.11.2014.

                                                                      Date of Decision:24.12.2015

Gian Chand aged 39 years son of Shri Parbhu Dayal, resident of Jain Chowk, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                                       ….Complainant.

                                        Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Circular Road, Opposite State Bank of India, Near Ghantaghar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                      …...Opposite Party. 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

                   Shri Balraj Singh, Member

         Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member

Present:- Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate, for complainant.

     Shri Satender Proxy Counsel for

     Shri A. Sardana,  Advocate for OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is owner of a  Motor Cycle (Splender) vehicle bearing registration No.HR-16H/1048 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party vide insurance policy bearing No. 420303/31/12/6200002761 which was valid from 11.09.2012 to 10.09.2013. The complainant alleged that on 08.02.2013 above said vehicle was stolen and FIR No.177 dated 11.02.2013 was registered in P.S. City Bhiwani.  The complainant also informed the OP  regarding the theft.  The complainant alleged that the police was not traced out the said motor-cycle and in the end un-trace report was filed by the police in the court.  The complainant further alleged that after completion of all the formalities the claim was submitted with the Opposite Party for making payment of insured amount but to no avail. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.

2.                 On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that  on 18.02.2013 the respondent company deputed Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, HIsar for investigations into the theft of the motor cycle of the complainant and after investigation he submitted his report.  It is submitted that the respondent sent letter dated 25.03.2013 to the complainant requiring him to submit the untraced report etc. but the complainant failed to supply the same.  It is submitted that the theft had allegedly taken place on 8.2.2013 but the FIR was lodged on 11.02.2013 and the matter was reported to the OP on 18.02.2013 which amounted to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 to Annexure C-12 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the opposite party placed on record Annexure R1 to Annexure R-17 alongwith supporting affidavit.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                 The claim of the complainant for the theft of his motor cycle was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground of delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR and delayed intimation of 10 days to the insurance company, regarding the theft of the motor cycle.  The counsel for the opposite party in support of his contention referred the following judgments:-

I         Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Mukesh Mali III (2015) CPJ 104 (Raj.).

II       Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus K. Eswara Prasad III (2013) CPJ 467 (NC).

7.                Admittedly, an FIR No. 177 dated 11.02.2013 Annexure C-4 was lodged by the complainant regarding the theft of his motor cycle and he also informed the insurance company.  The untrace report has also been accepted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani vide order dated 30.01.2014 Annexure C-5.  The counsel for the complainant argued that the factum of motor cycle being stolen is an admitted fact.

8.                 The theft of the motor cycle is not disputed and FIR Annexure C-4 has been lodged by the complainant for the theft of his motor cycle.  The untrace report Annexure C-5 has been also obtained by the complainant from the court, the photo copy of which is Annexure C-5.  The insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, when the insurer/complainant has obtained the comprehensive policy  for the loss caused to the complainant.  The motor cycle in question was insured by the opposite party for IDV of Rs. 24,000/- vide policy Annexure C-1.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the opposite party is liable to pay the claim for the theft of the motor cycle to the complainant.  We direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 24,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the OP shall be liable to pay the interest @ 8 per cent per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.  No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 24.12.2015.                     

      (Rajesh Jindal)                      

President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Ansuya Bishnoi)                (Balraj Singh)

     Member                            Member