Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 480
Instituted on : 17.09.2019.
Decided on : 13.12.2022
Sumit age-19 yrs. Son of Late Sh. Suresh resident of H.No. 1, Ward No. 11, Sunaro Wali Gali, Sampla District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager Office situated at 2nd floor, Narain Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak.
- Shivam Auto through its Authorized Person/Manager office situated at Delhi Road, Rohtak Beside Sanjeev Bhaiya General Store, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. S.P.Dhankar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased a New Motorcycle Hero HF Deluxe on 14.05.2018 for Rs. 46,445/- from the opposite party No. 2 bearing Engine No. HA11ENJGD08987, Chassis No. MBLHAR206JGD09713. The said vehicle was got insured with opposite party No. 1 vide policy Cover Note/Certificate No. 0188296283 on the same day i.e. 14.05.2018 covering the risk of Rs. 44,123/- from 14.05.2018 to 13.05.2019. It is further submitted that on the same day i.e. on 14.05.2018 the said vehicle was stolen in front of the H.No. 2447, Sector-3, Housing Board, Rohtak at about 03:00 PM. An FIR No. 214 dated 14.05.2018 Under Section 379 IPC was lodged on the same day in police station Urban Estate, Rohtak and the complainant has duly informed the officials of opposite parties about the theft of above-said vehicle. The police could not trace the vehicle and filed un-trace report in concerned Court of Sh. Harish Goel ACJM, Rohtak on 22.01.2019. Thereafter theft claim case, complete in all respect was duly lodged with opposite party No. 1 immediately but the opposite party No. 1 has repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was registered on 15.05.2018 after one day from the date of loss/theft and it was not registered at the time of theft/stolen while giving reference to condition No. 39, Chapter No. IV of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is also submitted that on 14.05.2018 before taking the delivery of the vehicle, the complainant has deposited the Smart Card fee, MV Tax, Postal Fee, Temporary registration and new registration charges amounting to Rs. 2540/- on the same day with the opposite party No. 2. But the opposite party No. 2 asked the complainant to collect the temporary registration certificate on the next day i.e. 15.05.2018 as their computer system was not working properly at that time. When the complainant obtain the temporary registration certificate then the date of issue on the print was mentioned as 15.05.2018 as the receipt was print out on 15.05.2018 whereas the complainant has deposited the entire amount on 14.05.2018. The opposite party No. 1-insured the vehicle on 14.05.2018 at 01:24:18 PM and the risk was covered upto midnight of 13.05.2019. The act of opposite parties of repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.46,445/-(Actual cost) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of vehicle in question till its realization, Rs.50,000/- as harassment and Rs.2540/- registration charges and cost of litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the intimation of the theft was given to the opposite party no. 1 after an inordinate delay of 11 days i.e. on 25.05.2018 without giving any plausible explanation for the delay. After receiving the theft claim of the complainant, opposite party deputed an independent investigator to investigate the matter. The said investigator submitted his report dated 26.06.2018 stating that the road tax was not paid as on the date of theft and temporary No. was not issued. It is wrong and denied that the intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was made immediately. It is further submitted that vehicle was purchased on 14.05.2018 at 13:07:15 hrs and it was stolen on 14.05.2018 at 15:00 hrs (as per FIR). It is further noted that as per the RC receipt of the vehicle, the fees towards registration was paid on 15.05.2018 i.e. one day after the date of theft. It is also submitted that on the date of theft the complainant was not holding any driving licence. The learner’s licence obtained by complainant is valid from 21.05.2018 to 20.11.2018. It is denied that an amount of Rs.2540/- deposited by the complainant with opposite party no. 2 for temporary registration number, new registration charges etc. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, notice issued to opposite party no. 2 was received back duly served. But none has appeared on its behalf. As such, opposite party no. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.11.2019 of this Commission.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence on dated 23.02.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no. 1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/9 and closed his evidence on dated 14.09.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that the date of purchase of vehicle is 14.05.2018. As per certificate cum policy schedule Ex.R1/1, the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party No.1 for the period 14.05.2018 13:24:18 to the midnight of 13.05.2019. The alleged vehicle was got stolen on 14.05.2018 and the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party No.1 but the opposite party No.1 vide its letter Ex.R1/9 has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that vehicle was registered on dated 15.05.2018 after 1 day from date of loss/theft & it was not registered at the time of theft/stolen. At the time of arguments, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has contended that if in any case the vehicle has been released by the respondent no.2 without Temporary registration, in that situation, opposite party No.2 should pay the IDV of the vehicle to the complainant. It is further contended that there was a delay of 11 days in giving intimation to the company.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per Insurance Certificate Ex.R1/1, the premium of Rs.1939/- was received by the opposite party No.1 on dated 14.05.2018 for the period 14.05.2018 13:24.:18 to the midnight of 13.05.2019. Meaning thereby the vehicle in question was fully insured at the time of theft. Perusal of Ex.C3 shows that after completion of all type of documentary formalities for temporary registration, the documents have been processed and same were completed in all respect on the next day i.e. 15.05.2018. Perusal of Ex.C5 shows that Motor Vehicle Tax has been paid from 14.05.2018 to One Time, amounting to Rs.1860/- and other amount regarding Smart Card Fee, Postal Fee, Temporary registration, New registration total amounting to Rs.2540/- have been received from the complainant on 14.05.2018 and the opposite party No.2 deposited the same on 15.05.2018. If a receipt of registration was printed on 15.05.2018, it does not mean that the vehicle was registered on 15.05.2018. If the vehicle was not registered on dated 14.05.2018, then how the opposite party No.1 issued the insurance policy on 14.05.2018 without registration of vehicle. Regarding the delayed intimation to the opposite party regarding the theft, it is observed that the FIR was lodged on the same day. Hence from the documents placed on record it is proved that at the time of theft of vehicle, it was fully insured with the opposite party no.1. As such opposite party No.1 is liable to pay the IDV of the vehicle to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the IDV of vehicle i.e. Rs.44123/-(Rupees forty four thousand one hundred and twenty three only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.17.09.2019 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
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:
13.12.2022.
……………………………......
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
