Haryana

Kurukshetra

117/2017

Rahul Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

K.K.Aggarwal

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.117 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 12.06.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:04.04.2018.

Rahul Mittal S/o Sh. Sumer Mittal, R/o Laxman Colony Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Hero Vertical 101 106, BMC House NI Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its authorized signatory. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. R.K.Singhal, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rahul Mittal against National Insurance Company, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is owner of a Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motor Cycle bearing registration No.HR07N-9634 and the same was got insured with the Ops vide policy bearing No.39010231156204994377 for the period valid w.e.f. 29.03.2016 to 28.03.2017.  It is alleged that on 10.07.2016 the said motor-cycle was stolen in front of house of complainant and the complainant lodged an FIR bearing No.577 dt. 12.07.2016 under Section 379 of IPC in P.S. Thanesar City.  Information regarding stolen of said vehicle was given to the Ops.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents but the Ops repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 29.03.2017.  The said repudiation of claim is wrong and illegal.  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 the insured amount alongwith interest and further to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as cost of 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 motor-cycle in question was alleged to be stolen on 10.07.2016, whereas the intimation to the police was given on 12.07.2016 i.e. after 2 days and the intimation to the company was given on 18.07.2016 i.e. after 8 days and it is clear cut violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance; that 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 has placed on file the documents Annexure-A to Annexure-H.  The Ops have proved on file the affidavit of Sh. Subhash Bhatia, Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Kurukshetra as Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R4

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             This is a theft claim.  The claim has been repudiated vide Ex.R4 on the ground that the theft of vehicle took place on 10.07.2016 and the FIR was lodged after 2 days i.e. on 12.07.2016 and the intimation to the Ops was given on 18.07.2016 i.e. after 8 days and the claim has been repudiated only on the ground of delay of FIR and intimation. 

7.             However, we are of the considered opinion that 2 days delay in lodging the FIR and 8 days delay in giving the intimation to the Ops cannot said to be fatal.  In such like circumstances, the complainant is entitled to the insured amount of vehicle i.e. Rs.17,978/-.  Further, the Ops were bound to release the said amount in favour of the complainant.  In these circumstances, the complainant is also entitled for an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

8.             As the complainant has been allowed the insured amount to the tune of Rs.17,978/- for theft of the said vehicle, so, in case the vehicle is traced 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.

        In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OPs to pay Rs.17,978/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization and penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:04.04.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member