BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 490 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 10.12.2013.
Date of Decision: -27.7.2015.
Sanjay son of Shri Maman Chand, resident of Ward No.13, Saini Ganj Mohalla, Charkhi Dadri, tehsil Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
The Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. E-8, E.P.I.P RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur.. …...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member
Present:- Shri D.V.Lamba, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri R.K.Verma, Advocate for OP.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is owner of a Motor Cycle bearing registration No.HR19/3235 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party. The complainant alleged that on 19.11.2012 above said vehicle was stolen in the Court Complex Charkhi Dadri and FIR No.264 dated 20.11.2012 was registered in P.S. City Charkhi Dadri. The complainant further alleged that after completion of all the formalities the claim was submitted with the Opposite Party for making payment of insured amount but his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 6.5.2013 on false grounds. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the intimation with regard to alleged theft was received from the complainant on 6.12.2012 mentioning therein that insured motor cycle was stolen on 19.11.2012 and the company has written letter dated 9.1.2013 advising him to submit the required documents but he failed to submit the same. The reminders dated 1.3.2013 and 25.4.2013 were also sent to the complainant in this regard but he again failed to submit the necessary required documents and as such the claim of the complainant was closed vide letter dated 6.5.2013. It is further alleged that the complainant has also violated the terms and conditions of the policy and has intimated the company with regard to alleged theft after a delay of 14 days. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 Photostat copy bill/cash Memo, Annexure C2 Photostat copy RC, Annexure C3 Photostat copy of Insurance Policy, Annexure C3/A Photostat copy of Screen Report, Annexure C4 Photostat copy of FIR, Annexure C5 & C5/A Photostat copy of repudiation letter, Annexure C6 Photostat copy of intimation to RA, Charkhi Dadri, Annexure C7 Courier Receipt and Annexure C8 Indemnity bond along with supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite party has placed on record Annexure R1 Photostat copy of Insurance Claim Form, Annexure R2 Photostat copy of FIR. Annexure R3 Untraced, Annexure R4 to R7 Photostat copies of letters, Annexure R8 Photostat copy of claim intimation slip, Annexure R9 Insurance Policy along with supporting affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the required documents were submitted by the complainant to the OP. The OP is liable to pay the claim amount.
6. Counsel for Opposite Party reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant has failed to submit the required documents to the OP for the process of claim despite letters dated 9.1.2013, 1.3.2013 and 26.4.2013, hence the claim has been rightly repudiated by the OP vide repudiation letter dated 6.5.2013 Annexure R7. He further submitted that till date the complainant has not submitted the untraced report of the Motor Cycle in question.
7. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. As per the complainant the Motor Cycle in question was stolen on 19.11.2012 and FIR No.264 dated 20.11.2012 was lodged with the concerned Police Station and the Photostat copy same Annexure C5. The arguments of the counsel for the OP is there is delay in lodging of FIR has no substance because the FIR was lodged with the concerned Police Station on the very next day of the theft of the Motor Cycle in question.
9. Taking into every aspect of the case, we are of the view that the OP being insured of the Motor Cycle in question, which has been stolen and FIR No.264 dated 20.11.2012 has been lodged is liable to indemnify the complainant. However, the complainant is also liable to submit the untraced report to the OP. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and award Rs.22000/- as compensation to the complainant against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party shall pay the said amount to the complainant with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of date of order till the date of payment.
The compliance of the order shall be made by Op within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 27.7.2015.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anita Sheoran) (Balraj Singh)
Member. Member.
