Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 26.

                                                          Instituted on     : 12.01.2011.

                                                          Decided on       : 09.03.2015.

Shamsher Singh son of Sh. Dharam Singh resident of VPO Chandpur Distt. Jhajjar.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak.

                                                          ……….Opposite party.

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

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Deepak Sethi, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.A.S.Malik, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of Truck bearing registration no.HR-14E-0106 which was duly insured with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.1250000/- vide cover note no.6131 for the period from 19.01.2007 to 18.01.2008. It is averred that the said truck of the complainant was stolen by some unknown person in the area of Alipur, Delhi and FIR No.664 dated 28.12.2007 was got lodged in this regard. It is averred that the complainant intimated the opposite party regarding the said theft and furnished all the required documents alongwith claim form but despite submitting all the documents opposite party has rejected the claim of the complainant. It is averred that complainant visited the office of opposite party many times to pay the claim amount but he was told that opposite party will not disburse the claim amount to him. It is averred that the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1250000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that FIR No.664 dated 28.12.2007 was lodged u/s 379 IPC by Yasmin the cleaner, stating that Truck No.14E-0106 was left on the road. But after lodging the FIR the cleaner changed his statement stating that unknown miscreants overpowered him and snatched away the truck alongwith the keys. It is averred that there is material contradictions in the statements version of the complainant and his representative itself unworthy to belief. So claim is not maintainable as per terms and conditions of policy on this ground alone. It is averred that the cover note and insurance policy were issued without mentioning the engine and chassis no. of the said truck. The proposal form is not enclosed. The insured did not apply for incorporation of engine and chassis no. on the policy till the date of theft even after till the expiry of said policy. Hence, opposite party is not legally liable to pay the said claim and an intimation was sent to the complainant through registered post. It is averred that claim is not payable on the ground breach of policy “reasonable care” not taken and claim has been repudiated on this ground also. On merits it is submitted that the claim has been settled as per terms and conditions of the policy and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such as per terms and conditions of the policy, complainant is not entitled to any claim. It is prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.

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

4.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.C1, documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8 and has closed his evidence.

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 insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed.  As per cover note Ex.C3 the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.1250000/-. As per copy of FIR Ex.C7 the vehicle was stolen on 28.12.2007 and the FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. 28.12.2007. Complainant intimated the opposite party on the same day and has lodged the claim with the opposite party vide Claim Intimation Form Ex.C9 which was received by the opposite party on the same day but the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R2 had repudiated the claim on the ground that mere covering of the theft and snatching under policy does not allow the Insured and his representatives to change their statements on material facts, as the same indicates towards the malafide intentions and raises doubt on the incident.

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that in the present case insurance and theft of the vehicle is proved but the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that there was contradiction between the statement of insured and his representative . In this regard it is observed that as per copy of FIR the vehicle was stolen but as per the report of complainant made in claim form Ex.R5, the vehicle of the complainant was snatched by some unknown person. However, opposite party appointed the investigator who as per his report Ex.R6 had mentioned the statements of owner, driver, neighbourer, insured and cleaner and as per their statements shown as (a) to (h) under the head Investigation Process(Statements) the vehicle was snatched by some unknown person by overpowering the cleaner. Photocopy of the alleged statements are also enclosed with the report of investigator. Moreover as per the opinion of the investigator mentioned in his report, the date, time and place of theft seems to be genuine. Truck was snatched and not stolen. Hence from the investigation carried out by the opposite party it is proved on file that the vehicle was snatched by some unknown person and the untrace report is also placed on file and as per the report of investigator, no fraud has been established on the part of insured. As such the repudiation of claim on the ground of contradiction between the statement of insured and his representative is not genuine and opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount. As per the report of investigator Ex.R6, the insured had agreed to accept Rs.1230000/- which is not denied by the complainant. Accordingly the opposite party is liable to pay the alleged amount to the complainant.

 8.                        In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.1230000/-(Rupees twelve lac thirty thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.12.01.2011 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. transfer of R.C. & Subrogation letter etc. to the opposite party failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.

9.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

10.                        File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

09.03.2015.

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

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

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

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.