DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NARNAUL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.174 of 2011
DATE OF INSTITUTION:- 16.06.2011
DATE OF ORDER:- 15.01.2015
Jitender Kumar son of Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal, Resident of Mohalla Kharkhari, Kallu Mal Bagichi road, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh
……………COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
- Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. through Manager Office S.C.O. 212-214, 1st Floor, Sector-34A, Chandigarh
- Bharat Saini son of Shri Nitya Nand Saini, Money Gainer/ Agent, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Near Moda Wala Mandir, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh
………….. OPPOSITE PARTIES
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Usha Yadav, Member
L.K. Nandwani, Member
Present:- Shri Pankaj Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Ashok Yadav, Advocate for opposite party No.1
Shri Bhaskar Saini, Advocate for opposite party No.2
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
According to the complaint, brief facts are that the complainant is registered owner of a vehicle Motor-cycle Make Hero Honda Passion bearing registration No.HR-35B-1205 and got it fully insured with opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 vide cover note No.200701763454, Policy No. 1304372312125855 for the period from 28.11.2007 to 27.11.2008. The complainant has alleged that on 07.09.2008 the aforesaid motor-cycle was stolen by some unknown person while it was parked outside his house. It is averred that the cover note was stolen along with the motor-cycle in question. The complainant traced the motor-cycle at his own level, but to no effect, so he lodged an FIR No.339 dated 03.10.2008 under Section 379 IPC with police station City Narnaul. The complainant immediately gave intimation with regard to theft of the motor-cycle to the opposite parties. The complainant submitted the claim with the opposite parties after completing all the required formalities. Untrace report was submitted by the police on 08.01.2009 before Illaqua Magistrate and same was accepted by the Court on 11.11.2009. The complainant also submitted the untrace report of the vehicle, copy of order of the Court dated 11.11.2009 and police report dated 04.11.2009 with the opposite parties. The complainant requested the opposite parties several times to pay the claim, but to no effect. The complainant sent legal notice dated 20.02.2010 to the opposite parties through his counsel Shri Balwant Singh Rao, Advocate, Narnaul, but it went unheeded. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay the claim together with compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
2. Opposite party No.1 filed its reply stating, inter-alia, therein that allegedly the vehicle in question was stolen on 07.09.2008, but its intimation was given to the answering opposite party and the police on 03.10.2008 i.e. after a delay of 26 days of alleged theft, which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It is denied that the cover note of insurance of motor-cycle was stolen along with the motor-cycle. The complainant has not completed all the requisite formalities. Opposite party No.1 has averred that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the insurance company. Rests of the allegations as alleged in the complaint are denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. In the end, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party No.2 filed separate reply averring that the motor-cycle in question was got fully insured by the complainant with opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. The complainant has not given any intimation with regard to theft of the motor-cycle to the answering opposite party. Insurance policy of the vehicle was given to the complainant at the time of effecting insurance. Rests of the allegations as alleged in the complaint are denied in toto. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his own supporting affidavit Annexure C-1, copy of registration certificate of vehicle Annexure C-2, copy of FIR No.339 dated 03.10.2009 Annexure C-3, copy of letter dated 01.11.2008 Annexure C-4, copy of letter dated 07.02.2009 Annexure C-5, copy of letter dated 18.03.2009 Annexure C-6, courier receipt Annexure C-7, copy of application dated 04.04.2009 Annexure C-8, copy of letter dated 03.11.2008 Annexure C-9, copy of letter dated 10.11.2008 Annexure C-10, postal receipt Annexure C-11, copy of letter dated 25.11.2009 Annexure C-12, certified copy of statement of Jitender Annexure C-13, copy of order dated 11.11.2009 Annexure C-14, copy of police report dated 04.11.2009 Annexure C-15, copy of untrace report Annexure C-16, copy of Final Form/ Report Annexure C-17, postal receipts Annexures C-18 & C-19 and copy of legal notice dated 20.02.2010 Annexure C-20.
5. In reply thereto, opposite party No.1 has placed on record supporting affidavit of its Manager Legal Mr. Satyan Kapoor Annexure OP-1 and copy of Motor Claim Form Annexure OP-2. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has made a statement before the Forum on 20.08.2014 that the reply filed by opposite party No.2 be read as evidence on his behalf.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant completed all the necessary formalities as required by the opposite parties. Untrace report accepted by the competent court was also obtained and same is Annexure C-13 and was also supplied to opposite party No.1, but the opposite parties have failed to pay the claim to the complainant.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of the replies, respectively. Learned counsel for opposite party No.1 submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR regarding the alleged theft of the motor-cycle by the complainant and the insurance company was also not informed immediately; hence the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, no claim is payable to the complainant. Learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has relied on the case law cited as Sagar Kumar versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. II (2014) CPJ 33 (NC).
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant record carefully. The cover note of the motor-cycle has not been produced by the complainant on the ground that the same was kept in the motor-cycle in question, which has been stolen, hence he could not produce the same and no insurance policy was supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant. On the other side, the opposite parties in their evidence have produced affidavit Annexure OP-1 and copy of motor claim form Annexure OP-2. No other document has been produced by the opposite parties in support of their pleadings. The opposite parties ought to have produced the copy of insurance policy, containing the terms and conditions of the policy, to prove their allegation of violation of terms and conditions by the complainant. When there is no insurance policy with the terms and conditions on the file, then how the opposite parties can assert that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite parties have utterly failed to adduce corroborative and cogent evidence in support of their contentions. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the insured amount of the motor-cycle in question as mentioned in the cover note related to the relevant period, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 16.06.2011 till the date of payment. This order be complied with within 45 days from the date of passing of this order.
Announced:-
15.01.2015.
(Smt. Usha Yadav) (L. K. Nandwani) (Rajesh Jindal)
Member Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Narnaul
