BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 188 of 2012
Date of Institution : 11.9.2012
Date of Decision : 31.8.2015
Krishan Mohan, aged about 45 years son of late Sh.Kanhaiya Lal, resident of Gali Seth Nand Lal Wali, Chandani Chowk, Sirsa, tehsil and distt.Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus.
- National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, First Floor, LIC Building, near Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
- National Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Office No.3, Middleton Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkata-700071 through its M.D/Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL ………PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.N.K.Daroliya, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.K.R.Jindal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that he was owner of Motor- Cycle
Hero Honda bearing registration No. HR-24L/7553, Chassis No.MBLHA-10EJ99H05351 and Engine No. HA10EA99H13499 which was duly insured with National Insurance Company i.e. opposite party no.1 for the period from 25.11.2010 to 24.11.2011, Policy No. 420700/31/10/6200003096 issued by the respondents including all types of risks. On 5.5.2011, the motor-cycle was parked outside the house of the complainant, which was stolen by some unknown person. The complainant approached police station to get lodged FIR but the officials advised to search the motor cycle at his own level and stated that if the motor cycle could not be found, then they would lodge FIR. When the motor-cycle was not found by the complainant, then he again approached to the police station and got registered the FIR bearing no.307 dated 8.5.2011. After that, the complainant lodged his claim with the opposite parties and also provided all the relevant documents. On 16.2.2012, opposite parties issued a letter to the complainant to supply the loss voucher duly signed, bank account particulars, NCRB report alongwith untraced report of the vehicle. The complainant completed all formalities till 16.6.2012. But, on 25.6.2012, opposite party no.1 against sent a letter raising some objections and again claimed the documents of motor cycle. The complainant approached opposite parties and they stated that due to some mistake, the letter was issued. However, vide letter dated 9.7.2012, opposite party no.1 again demanded untraced report, NCRB report and vide letter dt. 10.7.2012, he demanded both keys of the motor cycle. The complainant visited opposite parties many times, but all the times, he was given assurances. Ultimately, vide letter dated 9.8.2012, claim of the complainant was repudiated for the reasons that the FIR was got registered after two days and the same was not informed to the opposite parties till 25.5.2011. Hence, this complaint, for a direction to opposite parties for payment of insured amount of Rs.31400/-, with upto date interest, besides damages for his harassment, mention tension, humiliation etc. and litigation expenses.
2. Simple case of opposite parties, in their reply, is that the complainant delayed the matter in giving information to the police and also to the insurance company. He informed the police after 3 days delay and gave intimation to the company after 20 days delay. He violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He also did not supply the complete documents to the company within time and the delay created a great hurdle in the investigation by the police. The complainant was given many opportunities and his claim was rightly repudiated.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.CW1/A-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C1-copy of insurance policy; Ex.C2-copy of schedule of premium; Ex.C3-copy of certificate of insurance of motor-cycle; Ex.C4-copy of letter dt.9.8.2012; Ex.C5-marriage registration certificate; Ex.C6-copy of registration certificate of vehicle; Ex.C7-copy of order/untrace report dated 15.6.2012; Ex.C8-copy of reply to letter dt. 25.6.2012; Ex.C9-copy of reply dt. 12.7.2012; Ex.C10-copy of application for lodging FIR; Ex.C11-copy of information given to opposite parties dated 25.5.2011; Ex.C12-copy of letter for delay of FIR to State Crime record Bureau, Haryana; Ex.C13-copy of application written to opposite parties for not filing the case; Ex.C14-copy of II reminder dt.1.3.2012 and Ex.C15-Final report Form.
4. In reply thereto, opposite parties have placed on record Ex.R1-original request of complainant dated 23.3.2012 for not disposing of the case; Ex.R2-copy of letter dt. 12.5.2011 written by State Crime Record Bureau for intimating the reasons for delay in registration of FIR; Ex.R3-investigation report; Ex.R4-copy of FIR; Ex.R5-copyof insurance policy; Ex.R6-copy of repudiation letter and Ex.R7-supporting affidavit of Assistant Manager Ashok Kamboj.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
6. We have examined the pleadings and documents of the parties very carefully. Arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties have also been appreciated, regarding the theft of motor-cycle of the complainant on 5.5.2011 in night hours. Opposite parties pleaded in their written statement that the complainant informed to police (investigating agency) on 8.5.2011 vide FIR No.307 dated 8.5.2011 under Section 379 IPC registered and informed to insurance company on 25.5.2011. The insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground delay intimation.
7. No doubt, there is a delayed intimation by the complainant, but the complainant explained his delay in the complaint as well as his affidavit that the complainant immediately contacted to the police station (investigating agency) after the theft of motor-cycle, police officials advised the complainant to search the motor-cycle within one and two days and assured that if the complainant could not found his motor-cycle anywhere, then police will lodge the FIR. Delay is fully explained by the complainant. In support of his argument, complainant produced authority cited as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Mali, III(2015) CPJ 104 (Raj.), which is fully applicable on this case.
8. In the light of above discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with cost of Rs.1,000/-. The respondent-company is directed to make the payment of insurance amount to the tune of Rs.31400/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation dated 9.8.2012 till actual payment. The compliance of this order be made within a period of one month, failing which the complainant is at liberty to initiate the legal proceedings against the respondent-company. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:31.8.2015. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
