J U D G E M E N T
1. The complainant filed the complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the OP.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant had insured his Hero Honda motorcycle brg.Regn.No.KA-33/H-9317 with OP’s insurance company, which was valid from 6.3.2009 to 5.3.2010. On 7.3.20009, at about 7.00 p.m, the complainant after returning from his work had parked his motorcycle in front of his house by locking it. From there, somebody had stolen it. The complainant approached the concerned police station and informed about the theft and the police asked him not to give the complaint and to search for the stolen motorcycle. Accordingly, the complainant searched for the same around the city. But he could not trace it. Hence the complainant once again went to the police and requested them to receive the complaint. But the police told him to wait for some time as the motorcycle could be traced in some time. When the motorcycle could not be traced by the police, they registered the case in Crime No.67/2009 and then filed the ‘C’ final report to the court at Shorapur. The very next day of the theft of the bike, the complainant approached the OP and intimated about the same. The OP asked the complainant to come with all details like complaint, FIR, chargesheet, insurance particulars, registration certificate etc. Accordingly, the complainant produced all the relevant documents. However, the OP refused to settle the claim made by the complainant as per their letter dated 8.2.2012. This act of OP is contrary to the law. The OP intentionally avoided the written intimation. The non-settlement of the claim by the OP amounts to deficiency in service, which caused mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint for reliefs as prayed for.
3. The complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit evidence, which is marked as PW-1 and relied on six documents, which are marked as Exh.P-1 to P-6.
4. Arguments heard on complainant’s side.
5. The points that arise for our consideration are;
1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?
3) What order?
6. Our answer to the above points are as follows;
1) In the affirmative.
2) Partly in the affirmative.
3) As per final order for the following;
:: REASONS ::
7. Point No.1 :
There is no challenge to the case of the complainant as OP has not denied the case of complainant by filing the objection or written version and by producing evidence, which rebuts the case of complainant. Therefore, the case of the complainant stands proved because when a fact asserted by one party if not denied by other party, the said fact asserted stands proved. Besides this, the complainant to prove his case produced his affidavit evidence and six documents, which are marked as Exh.P-1 to P-6. Out of these documents, Exh.P-2 is the insurance policy and it goes to show that the complainant’s motorcycle bearing No.KA-33/H-9317 was insured with the OP’s insurance company and the policy was to be in force from 6.3.2009 to 5.3.2010. The alleged theft having taken place on 7.3.2009, as per the policy terms and conditions, the OP is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant for the theft of the vehicle, which was insured with them. The complainant by producing certificate of registration, which is marked as Exh.P-3 proved that he is the owner of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-33/H-9317, which was stolen on the alleged date. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to receive the compensation from the insurance company towards compensation. The complainant by producing copy of the FIR, which is marked as Exh.P-4 proved that his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-33/H-9317 was stolen on 7.3.2009. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the compensation from the insurance company towards theft of his motorcycle. The OP’s insurance company by refusing to pay the said compensation committed the deficiency in service. Accordingly, this point is answered in the affirmative.
8. Point No.2 :
As the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s insurance company, the OP’s insurance company is liable to pay compensation towards deficiency in service to the complainant, which shall be as per final order. Accordingly, this point is answered partly in the affirmative and the following;
:: ORDER ::
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
The OP shall pay Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant towards deficiency in service along with Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings.
The OP shall pay the amount awarded to the complainant within 30 days.
Inform the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 3rd day of August 2013)
