Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/78/2015

Sushila - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Savitri Devi

11 Apr 2016

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/78/2015
 
1. Sushila
Wife of Maha Singh vpo 22 ward 3 Bagh cothi bhiwani
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. NIC
Branch manager bhiwani
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Jindal PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Ansuya Bishnoi MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                               

                                                                      Complaint No.: 78 of 2015.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 19.03.2015.

                                                                      Date of Decision:27.05.2016

 

 Smt. Sushila Kumari aged 52 years, wife of Maha Singh, resident of H. No. 22,   

 Ward No. 3, Bagh Kothi Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani (Haryana).

 

                                                                         .….Complainant.

                                                                                            

                                        Versus

  1. The National Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. & Office-3, Middleton Street, Calcutta-700071.

 

  1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office SCO 332-334, Sector-34A, Chandigarh.

 

  1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office at Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

                                                                      …...Opposite Parties. 

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12  OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

 

 

BEFORE: -   Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

         Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member

 

Present:-  Smt. Savitri Devi, Advocate for the complainant.

     Shri Satender Proxy Counsel of

     Shri A. Sardana,  Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:-

 

Rajesh Jindal, President:

 

         

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that she was owner of a  Motor Cycle vehicle bearing registration No.HR-16K/5091, chassis No. MBLHA10EZB9G09583, Engine No. HA10EFB9G15170 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party vide insurance policy bearing No. 35100731116201070650 which was valid from 05.08.2011 to 04.08.2012. It is alleged that the Jasvir son of Sunder Lal, resident of village Paintawas Kalan is the relative of the complainant has gone to his company on motor cycle no. HR 16K-5091 and same was parked outside of the company.  After some time when came out of the company, the said M/cycle was not there and lodged FIR No.193 dated 22.07.2012, under Section 379 IPC was registered in P.S. Manesar (Gurgaon).  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 parties and as such, she had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.

2.                 On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come to this Court with clean hands.  It is submitted that after perusal of the documents produced by the complainant it was found that the incident of theft took place on 20.07.2012 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged by one Shri Jasveer on 22.07.2012.  It is submitted that the complainant failed to furnish any proof that the police was informed on the date of theft as alleged by her.  It is submitted that the information of the insurance policy was also delayed.    Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has produced documents  Annexure C1 to Annexure C-15 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the counsel for Ops tendered into evidence documents  Annexure R1 to Annexure R-8.

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

6.                 Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  She submitted that the motor cycle in question is insured with the OP for a sum of Rs. 40457/-.  The motor cycle of the complainant was stolen on 20.07.2012 and FIR No. 193 dated 22.07.2012 was registered with the concerned police station which is Annexure C-2.  The untrace report dated 25.10.2012 is Annexure C-13.  She further submitted that the complainant immediately informed the OPs regarding the theft of the motor cycle and submitted the necessary documents for the payment of the claim.  In support of her contention she referred the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, Orissa in case No. 6 of 2000, D/d 31.10.2013 Gajendra Prasad Panda Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2004 (4) C.P.J. 767.

7.                 Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of reply.  He submitted that there is delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR regarding the theft of the motor cycle by the complainant.  Therefore, no claim is payable to the complainant as she has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The counsel for the OPs relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus K. ESW ARA PRASAD III (2013) CPJ 467.   

8.                In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record.  Undisputedly, an FIR No. 193 dated 22.07.2012 was lodged regarding the theft of the motor cycle with the concerned police station.  The untrace report dated 25.10.2012 has also been placed by the complainant on file as Annexure C-13.  The OP was intimated regarding the theft of the motor cycle.  The Ops have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 06.02.2015 Annexure R-5 on the ground of delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR.  Admittedly, the motor cycle in question has been stolen during the insurance coverage period.  The Ops have issued the comprehensive policy and is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the loss cause to the complainant.  The company has not brought on record any material that there is intentional delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Ops liable to pay the claim for the theft of the motor cycle to the complainant.  We direct the Ops to pay Rs. 40457/-  the  insured amount without interest to the complainant within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the Ops shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum after the stipulated period 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: 27.05.2016.                     

      (Rajesh Jindal)                      

President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

 

 

 

(Ansuya Bishnoi)                         

                Member                          

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Rajesh Jindal]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Ansuya Bishnoi]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.