O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant on 20.09.2010 had purchased a Motor Cycle make Pulsar-150 registered as No.DL-5-S-AE-8034 from Rajeev Automobiles for a sum of Rs.70,000/-. The said vehicle was insured by OP vide Policy No.271602/31/2011/6419 for a period effective from 20.09.2010 to 19.09.2011. The insurance declared value of the vehicle was Rs.58,525/-. It is alleged in the complaint that the said vehicle was stolen in the night intervening of 2/3-12/2010 from outside the residence of the complainant for which the complainant lodged a report with P.S. Geeta Colony, Delhi on 03.12.2010. It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant has also informed the O.P vide email dated 04.12.2010 about the theft of the vehicle. It is further alleged that a surveyor of the O.P conducted the survey and all the documents were furnished to him. The O.P has failed to pay the complainant the claimed amount even after issuance of legal notice to it. The complainant vide this complaint is claiming the Rs.97,200/- towards compensation amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and the litigation cost of Rs.22,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the O.P which has filed its written statement. The O.P in the written statement has admitted the insurance of the vehicle by it which was valid from 20.09.2010 to 19.09.2011 for IDV Rs.58,525/- subject to various terms and conditions. The O.P has also admitted that an intimation letter about the theft of the said vehicle was received by it on 06.12.2010. The O.P has submitted that as the complainant failed to submit the required paper/ information to the O.P, therefore, the claim of the claimant was closed as “No Claim” due to non-compliance of the formalities and violation of policy terms and conditions. It is submitted by the O.P that the theft of the vehicle was reported to the Police vide FIR lodged on 09.12.2010 i.e. after 7 days, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the claim of the insurance. The O.P has also submitted that the loss was assessed by the surveyor for an amount of Rs.50,672/- which was subject to compliance of various terms of policy. It has been submitted that the complainant be directed to complete all other formalities as per provisions of the policy and in that event the liability of the O.P is limited to the assessed amount of
Rs. 50,672/-. In the end it has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. We have gone through the documents placed on record by the complainant as well as O.P. From the documents it is evident that the vehicle purchased by complainant was got insured by the complainant from the O.P. The complainant has also placed on record Delhi Police Control Room Record which shows that the report of theft was lodged with the Police on 03.12.2010 at 9:21:50 which proves that there was no delay in reporting the matter with the Police. The complainant has also filed copy of the insurance policy effective from 20.09.2010 to 19.09.2011. The complainant has also filed his driving license as well as cash memo regarding purchase of the vehicle from Rajeev Automobile.
4. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as documents placed on record. It is not disputed that the complainant has obtained insurance cover from the O.P valid from 20.09.2010 to 19.09.2011. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was stolen between 02/03-12-2010 from outside the house of the complainant. It is also proved that the matter was reported to the Police Control Room on 03.12.2010 and the FIR NO.341/10 dated 9.12.2010 was lodged at P.S. Geeta Colony for theft vehicle involved in this case. It is admitted by the O.P that the complainant had intimated it about the theft of the vehicle on 06.12.2010. However the report of the surveyor filed and relied upon by the O.P reveals that the theft was promptly reported with the Police Authorities as well as to the O.P. The surveyor has observed that there is no breach of any terms, exception, limitation, endorsement and conditions etc. of the Policy. The surveyor has also observed that at the time of theft the above vehicle was duly secured/ locked and then parked, in the end, the surveyor has found that the case is genuine and the same be settled as deemed fit by the O.P. The surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.50,672/- and recommended for settlement on this amount.
6. In view of the above discussion it is apparent and evident that the vehicle of the complainant was lost due to theft and could not be recorved in view of the untrace report of the Police. The complainant took all the steps promptly in reporting the matter to the Police as well as the O.P. Therefore, the O.P is liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of sum assured i.e. Rs.58,525/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 06.05.2011 i.e. the date of institution of the complaint till payment, with further award of Rs.5,000/- towards harassment, mental agony, pain, loss of time and litigation cost.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 23rd day of February, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
