BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 1 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 2.1.2012.
Date of Decision: -10.8.2015.
Krishan Kumar son of Shri Nar Singh, resident of village Chhapar Rangran, tehsil Tosham, district Bhiwani. ….Complainant.
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Clock Tower, Circular Road, Bhiwani. …...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Present:- Shri Sanjeev Brar, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri R.K.Verma, Advocate for OP.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is owner of a White Bolero bearing registration No.HR-48/6000 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party. The complainant alleged that on 4.3.2010 his relative Dharam Pal along with his family members brought the above said insured vehicle at Haridwar for the purpose of last ceremonies of his brother-in-law and at about midnight i.e. 2.00 A.M. above said vehicle was stolen and FIR No.103 dated 4.3.2010 was lodged in P.S. Bhupatwala (Haridwar). 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 his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 9.11.2011 on false grounds. 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 the intimation with regard to alleged theft was received from the complainant vide letter dated 9.3.2010 and after receiving the intimation, the opposite party deputed the surveyor for submitting investigation report. It is submitted that the surveyor of the company has sent letter dated 5.4.2010 to complainant to fulfill the required documents well within time. The complainant failed to fulfill the documents required by the OP and as such, reminders dated 13.10.2010, 11.11.2010 and 10.12.2010. It is submitted that the complainant sent letter dated 29.12.2010 and submitted some documents. It is also alleged that the driver has mentioned in FIR that he has taken the vehicle on hire basis but he has turned from his statement given at the time of lodging of FIR. It is also alleged that as per detailed legal opinion the vehicle in question was stolen on 4.3.2010 and intimation to the police was given on the same day but the intimation to the OP was given through registered post on 9.3.2010 after a period of five days which is clear cut violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated and he was informed accordingly vide letter dated 9.11.2011. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP 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 Photostat copy of RC, Annexure C2 Photostat copy of Insurance Cover Note, Annexure C3 Photostat copy of letter dated 9.11.2011, Annexure C4 Policy Schedule, Annexure C5 Photostat copy of Ration Card, Annexure C6 Photostat copy of FIR, Annexure C7 Photostat copy of Final Report, Annexure C8 Photostat copy of letter, Annexure C9 Photostat copy of untraced report, Annexure C10 Photostat copy of certified copy of order, Annexure C11 Photostat copy of letter dated 7.4.2010, Annexure C12 Photostat copy of letter dated 24th September, 2013, Annexure C13 Photostat copy of Postal Receipt and Annexure C14 Photostat copy of account statement along with supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Ashok Siroha, Branch Manager of the Company.
5. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It has been contended by the OP that there is delay in intimation to the OP regarding the theft of vehicle in question, on behalf of the complainant. He further contended that the vehicle was being used by the complainant for hire and reward.
6. The perusal of the record reveals that no evidence has been adduced by the OP in support of its contention. On the other side the complainant has produced letter/report of I.O dated 8.3.2010 Annexure C8 sent to the OP with regard of the stolen of vehicle to the effect that the said vehicle was not brought to Haridwar on hire basis. The FIR No.103 dated 4.3.2010 Annexure C6 and the untraced report dated 21.1.2011 Annexure C9 has been placed on record by the complainant. According to complainant the vehicle in question was stolen on 4.3.2010 and the FIR No.103 dated 4.3.2010 was lodged on the same day. There is no delay in lodging of FIR. There is delay of six days in intimation to the OP, regarding theft of the vehicle.
7. Taking in to account of every aspect of the case, we are of the view that the OP is liable to pay claim for the theft of the vehicle in question to the complainant. The OP could have settled the claim of the complainant on non standard basis at 75% of the insured amount of Rs.5,46,250/-. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and award Rs.4,09,687.50 paisa to the complainant against OP. The OP shall be liable to pay the said amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment. This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days, otherwise OP shall be liable to pay the enhanced interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order till payment .
The compliance of the order shall be made by Op within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: .10.8.2015.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Balraj Singh)
Member.
