ORDER
                                       Dated:  06-10-2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President



1.      The complainant filed this complaint on 07-05-2012 and alleged
that his motorcycle  bearing no DL 7S BC 7455   was insured by the OP
valid from 03.07.2009 to 02.07.2010.  On 19.06.2010 ,his motorcycle
was stolen from the DDA parking lot near Modi Tower. Accordingly an
FIR no. 309 dated 02.07.2010 was registered at P.S.  Kalkaji , but his
vehicle could not be traced and untrace report was filed  U/s 173
CrPC. The complainant requested  to release the insurance claim to the
OP1 but vide letter 05.01.2012 , OP1 repudiated the claim of the
complainant on the ground that OP1 is not liable in case of breach of
trust i.e. U/s 406  IPC.  Despite all efforts  by the complainant
insurance claim was not given by OP1. Hence, this complaint wherein it
was prayed that a sum of Rs. 58,482/- with interest  @18 p.a. from
19.06.2010  till





the date of payment, a compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh be awarded to
complainant against OPs.

2.      In reply, OP1 admitted that complainant got  issued a policy
from OP1 in respect of his motorcycle and denied rest of the
allegations made in the complaint. It was further stated by the OP1
that complainant had  entrusted his motorcycle to OP2 who was allottee
 of the parking site from where the motorcycle has been lost. The
liability of the insurance company squarely falls upon OP2 as element
of theft is not involved in this matter. It was further stated that in
violation of the terms and conditions of the policy , delayed
intimation of theft was given  by the complainant to OP1.

3.      OP2 did not appear despite service of notice hence proceeded
Ex-parte against him on 14.12.2013.

4.     In support of complaint complainant filed his own affidavit.

5.     In support of reply, OP1 filed affidavit of Sh. Jasbir S. Kalsi
, Divisional Manager along with documents.

6.     Written arguments filed by the complainant and OP1.

7.     Heard both the parties and considered the evidence laid by the
parties along with their written arguments and perused file.  In this
case the points to be considered are as under :

(i)                Whether complainant is a consumer?

(ii)             Where there is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party?

(iii)           Relief.

8.     As OP admitted that vehicle of the complainant was insured with
OP  and insurance was valid from 03.07.2009 to 02.07.2010 hence
complainant is a consumer.

9.     Affidavit of the complainant as well as FIR no.309 dated
02.07.2010 U/s 379 IPC P.S. Kalkaji clarify that the First Information
Report was registered U/s 379 IPC and not U/s 406 IPC. Hon’ble State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.T. Chandigarh in appeal no.
156 of 2010 titled as  Manju Malohtra V/s Municipal Corporation vide
its order dated 19.07.2011 held in para no. 11 that “scooter of the
complainant was insured for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- and the complainant
could very easily recover the insurance cover as the insurance company
liable to indemnify the loss occurred to the complainant of the
scooter.” Therefore, we are of the opinion that in case of theft from
parking area of insured motorcycle insurance company is liable to
indemnify the loss occurred on the account of the theft of the
motorcycle to the complainant.  Hence the claim of the complainant is
not covered under general exceptions of the policy and the claim
repudiated by the OP1 is not justified which proves that there is
deficiency in service  on the part of OP1.

10.                          Complainant’s vehicle  no. DL 7S BC 7455
was insured for the sum of Rs.  46,786/- as per Annexure A ,
therefore, claim of the complainant for the insured amount of Rs.
46,786/- is justified.

11.                         In the above facts and circumstances we
are of the considered opinion that claim of complainant repudiated by
the OP1 is unjustified and deficiency in service by OP1 is proved.
Therefore, we hereby direct OP1 as under:-

1.     To pay insured sum of Rs. 46,786/- to the complainant.

2.     To pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to complainant

3.     To pay Rs 10000/- as cost of litigation to complainant.

12.                         The above amount shall be paid within 2
months from the date of order failing which additional interest of 18%
p.a. will be payable on entire above amount.

13.                         Copy of the order be made available to the
parties as per law. File be consigned to record room.



Announced on ……….