Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 145

                                                          Instituted on     : 5.4.2018.

                                                          Decided on      : 10.11.2021.

Sandeep, aged 28 years son of Sh. Sumer Singh, resident of VPO Gharothi, Tehsil & District Rohtak now H. No.33/11 Nehru Colony, Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jawahar Market, Opp. D. Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak through Its Divisional Manager.

                                                          ……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Satish Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of motor cycle bearing registration no.HR-12S-9419, which was insured with opposite party vide policy no.261200/31/2015/852. The above said motor cycle was stolen on 6.5.2014 and an FIR no.94 dated 12.05.2014 was registered under Section 379 of IPC at PS Lakhan Majra. The complainant lodged his claim with the opposite party and completed all the formalities but till today, the claim amount has not been paid by the opposite party. All the required documents including untraced report has already been submitted in the office of opposite party. The complainant requested the opposite party to pay claim but the opposite party vide its letter dated 14.09.2017 has closed the case as no claim. This letter was on false and baseless grounds as there was no intentional delay in lodging FIR. Regarding keys, it is submitted that an affidavit was given by the complainant to the opposite party. The complainant requested the respondent to pay the claim alongwith interest but the opposite party has refused to pay the same. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim of Rs.32,000/- alongwith interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account of harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant did not give intimation regarding the alleged theft immediately after the theft of his vehicle and he had left the motor cycle in question unattended and has violated the terms and conditions no.1 & 4 of the policy. The complainant lodged the FIR on 12.05.2014 while the alleged theft had taken place on 06.05.2014 and the intimation regarding the theft of his motor was given by the complainant to the respondent on 30.05.2014. Due to late intimation given by the complainant the respondent lost opportunity/chance to make efforts to trace out the motorcycle in question. It is also submitted that the respondent had issued letter dated 14.09.2017 requiring therein explanation from the complainant as detailed in para no.7 of preliminary objection but the complainant has failed to give any explanation, so the claim of the complainant has been treated as No claim as per the terms and conditions of Policy. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.

3.                Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and the evidence of the complainant was closed by Court order dated 06.02.2019. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and has closed his evidence on dated 29.05.2019.

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

6.                In the present case, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the theft of vehicle had taken place on 06.05.2014 whereas the complainant lodged the FIR on 12.05.2014 and the intimated the opposite party on 30.05.2014. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the reason for delay in FIR is that the complainant tried to search the vehicle himself firstly and thereafter lodged the FIR. In this regard we have also perused the copy of FIR Ex.C2, as per which it is mentioned that: “The vehicle was stolen on 06.05.2014 and we were trying to search the vehicle at our own level till today but could not trace out the vehicle and as such the report may kindly be lodged”.  

7.                No doubt, there is delay of 6 days in lodging the FIR but as per the Investigation report Ex.R4 the theft of vehicle is not denied.  Due to delay in lodging the FIR and intimation to the opposite party, whole claim of the complainant should not be denied and opposite party should pay the claim after deduction of some amount. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited by ld. Counsel for the complainant of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula dated 19.03.2014 in First Appeal No.37 of 2014 titled as The Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yadram and we have also perused order dated 20.08.2018 of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana Panchkula titled as Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs. Balwant Rai”. The aforesaid law are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as in the present case also, as per report of investigator theft is genuine.  As such opposite party is liable to pay the IDV of vehicle after 10% deduction on it on account of lodging the delayed FIR and intimation to the company. As per policy Ex.C3, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.32000/-.

8.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.28800/-(Rupees twenty eight thousand and eight hundred only) and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within 45 days from the date of decision, failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.28800/- from the date of decision till its realization to the complainant.  However complainant is directed to complete the formalities e.g. letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C. and to send a copy of the same to the opposite party for information, to submit the signed form no.29-30, indemnity bond and subrogation letter in favour of the company within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party shall comply with the order dated 10.11.2021 of this Commission within 45 days from the date of submission of alleged documents by the complainant.

9.                         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:

10.11.2021.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.