BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                   Complaint No.:332 of 2015.

                                                                   Date of Institution: 09.12.2012.

                                                                   Date of Decision:04.11.2016

Surender Kumar son of Sh. Balbir, resident of village Kaliyana, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

                                                                    ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 301-308 Third Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No. 2, Road No. 44, near M2K Cinema Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi-1100034 through Managing Director.

                                                                    …...Opposite Party. 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

                  Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member

                    Ms. Sudesh, Member

Present:-    Shri Rupesh Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

        OP exparte.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased a Framatack Champian-35 Tractor bearing Ch. No. TO52310875 and Eng. No. E2315254 from M/s Tulsilok & Sons Charkhi Dadri on 26.06.2014 by financial assistance of Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.  It is alleged that on 23.01.2015 the tractor was parked at our house in the evening but during the night time the tractor was stolen.  It is alleged that he informed the police and FIR No. 54 dated 24.01.2015 was registered in P.S. Dadri Sadar, District Bhiwani but the same remained untrace.   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 to no avail. 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.                OP has failed to come present.  Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.07.2016.

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5 and Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-14 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the counsel for the complainant.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He submitted that the tractor in question was stolen in the night of 23.01.2015 and FIR NO. 54 dated 24.01.2015 was registered with the concerned police station and the insurance company/OP also intimated about the theft.  The tractor in question remain untraced.  Copy of FIR is Annexure A-6 and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is Annexure A-7, which was accepted by the concerned JMIC vide order dated 15.01.2016.  The counsel for the complainant submitted that the tractor in question was insured for a sum of Rs. 4,37,000/- vide insurance policy Annexure A-4.

6.                In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on the file.  The complainant has produced a letter dated 30.07.2015 Annexure A-14 issued by the insurance company to the complainant, vide which the claim of the complainant was rejected on the ground that there is delay of 12 days in the intimation to the insurance company regarding the theft of the tractor in question and as such the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  There is delay in lodging the FIR regarding the theft of the tractor.  The tractor remained untrace for which the complainant has produced the untrace report Annexure A-7.  The Ops did not bother to appear and contest the claim of the complainant.

7.                Though, there is delay of 12 days in intimation to the insurance company and it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy.  This fact cannot denied that the complainant has obtained the comprehensive policy in the loss caused to the tractor in question.  The theft of the tractor is not disputed because there is an FIR and untrace report has also been obtained by the complainant.  In these circumstances, the claim of the complainant ought to be settled on non standard basis.  Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay the 75% of the insured amount of the tractor to the complainant, this order be complied with by the Ops within 90 days from the date of passing of this order.  Thereafter, the Ops shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of payment on the awarded amount. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 04.11.2016.                   

      (Rajesh Jindal)                            

President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

       (Anamika Gupta)                       (Sudesh)                           

            Member                               Member