O R D E R ; ( Per Shri B.R. Chandel, President).
Admittedly, the complainant Shri Ram Gopal is the registered owner of Motorcycle No. 23-B-4207 which was insured with the opposite party No.1 vide insurance policy Annexure C-4 w.e.f. 10-09-2009 to 09-09-2010. The said motorcycle was stolen during the night intervening 25-26th of March, 2010, which resulted into registration of FIR Annexure C-5 in Police Station Kotkhai. The police has prepared untraced report Annexure C-6 dated 20-05-2011.
2. In view of the above stated undisputed facts, the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to indemnify him to the extent of insurance amount and pay a compensation of Rupees 50,000/- for causing monetary loss , harassment and mental tension on the grounds that after the theft of the motorcycle in question the complainant applied to the opposite party No.1 for payment of insurance benefits and visited its office several times, but the opposite party No.1 lingered on the matter and failed to make payment of the insurance amount which amounts to deficiency in service due to which the complainant has suffered harassment. He has further claimed that the complainant also visited the opposite party No.2 who is the insurance agent of opposite party No.1, but the opposite party No.2 also failed to get the claim settled.
3. The opposite party No.1 disputed the said claim and has set up the defense that the complainant has neither intimated nor made any claim regarding the theft of the motorcycle in question to the opposite party No.1 as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant was required to intimate the opposite party No.1 within 48 hours, but he has failed to do so as well as to lodge the claim, hence the complaint is not maintainable.
4. The opposite party No.2 has also adopted the defense set up by the opposite party No.1. The complainant has not produced any document in evidence in the shape of letter or anything in written form intimating theft of the motorcycle with the opposite party or make claim as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He has simply relied upon the affidavit Annexure C-1 vide which he has deposed that on 26-09-2010 he had telephonically informed the opposite party No.2 Manohar Lal being the agent of opposite party No.1 and he also informed his father, but no such averment has been made in the complaint. Even otherwise, information was required to be given to the opposite party No.1 and not opposite party No.2. The information given to his father by the complainant does not amount to compliance of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
5. Annexure C-2 is the affidavit of Joginder Pal, father of the complainant. He has deposed that on the date of theft he accompanied Devraj, and informed the opposite party No.2 regarding theft of the motorcycle in question. He has also deposed that it was disclosed by the Manohar Lal that he had received a telephone from his son. Dev Raj has also deposed on the same line vide his affidavit Annexure C-3. But Joginder Lal as well as Dev Raj have not at all deposed that they ever intimated the opposite party No.1 i.e. insurer of the vehicle in question. There is no iota of evidence on record adduced by the complainant to the effect that the complainant ever lodged claim regarding the theft of motorcycle in question with the opposite party. The theft took place during the night intervening 25-26th March 2010, and the present complaint has been filed on 15-02-2011, but the complainant has failed to show any cogent reason for not giving intimation or lodging his claim with the opposite party No.1 as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
6. In view of the above stated established facts, this Forum is bound to conclude that since the complainant has failed to prove that any intimation was given or claim was lodged with the opposite party in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, hence it would be in the interest of justice to direct the opposite party No.1 to consider the claim of the complainant, if any ,made by him as per the legal principle.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the opposite party No.1 is directed to consider and decide the claim of the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of claim form duly filled in along with documents to be submitted by the complainant with the opposite party No.1 within 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the opposite party No.1 fails to consider and decide the claim of the complainant after receipt of the claim form and documents within 45 days, it shall be liable to pay a cost of Rupees 5,000/-. In case the claim of the complainant is not decided favourbly he shall be at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action. Let certified copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, complete in all respects, be consigned to the Records.
ANNOUNCED & SIGNED IN THE OPEN FORUM;
Today this the 23rd day of January, 2015.
( B.R. Chandel)
President
(Manorma Chauhan) (Pawan Kumar)
Member Member
