Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 172.
Instituted on : 23.04.2018.
Decided on : 22.02.2019.
Abhishek Dahiya son of Sh. Kuldeep Dahiya, resident of H.No.414/2, Sanjay Colony, New Railway Road, Opposite Sheetla Hospital, Gurgaon at present H.No. 2526, Sector-1, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jawahar Market, D-Park, Model Town, Rohtak through its Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rohit Suhag, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-26bs-2526 and the same insured from OP insurance company vide policy No. 261200/31/2015/8373 valid from 25.10.2014 to 24.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.61,250/-. On 16.10.2015 the said vehicle was stolen by unknown culprit in the area of R.K. Puram, New Delhi which is parked there. It is alleged that the complainant immediately informed the local police about the theft of motorcycle. Then a case vide FIR No.16499 dated 17.10.2015 under Section 379 of IPS, P.S. –E Police Station MV theft was got registered. That complainant informed the officials of the OP about the theft of motorcycle and completed all the formalities. That police could not trace out the said vehicle and filed an untraced report in the court and same was allowed. The complainant submitted the same to OP, but the officials of the OP have repudiated the claim of the complainant on false ground. That the act of opposite party of not releasing the alleged claim amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. As such, it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the insured amount i.e. Rs.61,250/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of vehicle till the date of actual realization and also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply submitted that it is wrong that the police was informed immediately and wrong FIR was registered by the complainant with the help of the police. It is wrong that the police did not trace out the vehicle and un-trace report was submitted by the complainant. It is also denied that the OP repudiated the claim on false grounds. It is also wrong that the complainant is entitled for claim and the OP did not want to give claim on false grounds. That complainant did not completed the formalities therefore, claim was not given to him. Lastly prayed for dismissal the complaint qua the opposite party.
3 Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 28.11.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 07.02.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present complaint, the complainant has placed on record affidavit Ex.CW1/A and other documents i.e. Ex.C1 to Ex.C16. On the other hand, the respondent officials placed on record the affidavit Ex.RW1/A and other documents Ex.R2 & Ex.R3. The perusal of these documents placed on record by the respondents itself shows that the claim amounting to Rs.60150/- has already been sanctioned by the respondent authorities regarding theft of the vehicle after deducting excess clause as per the terms and conditions of the policy. As per Ex.R2, the respondent officials requested the complainant to sign and attest required documents regarding transfer of the registration certificate in favour of the insurance company. Regarding this fact no letter has been sent to the complainant. In fact, Ex.R2 was prepared on 10.07.2017. A letter Ex.R3 was written by the insurance company to the complainant on dated 17.11.2017. Through this letter the officials demanded a copy of letter and also demanded NCRB report. Thereafter, no letter has been sent by the insurance company to the complainant for submitting documents or regarding completion of formalities. On the other hand, as per the complainant he has submitted all the relevant and required documents with the insurance company.
7. At this stage, we came to the conclusion that complainant is directed to submit form no.29,30, letter of subrogation, indemnity bond and affidavit with the insurance company within 15 days of the order of the Forum. The respondent is directed to pay the sanctioned claim of the complainant i.e. Rs.60150/-(Rupees sixty one thousand one hundred and fifty only) within 15 days from the date of submission of alleged documents by the complainant, failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of decision till its realization to the complainant. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.02.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
