DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB) CC No. 119 of 22.04.2008 Decided on : 11-06-2008 Mewa Singh S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh R/o Village Sangat Kalan, P.O. Sangat Mandi, District Bathinda. ... Complainant Versus 1.The Executive Claims, IFFCO TOKIO, IFFCO House, 3rd Floor, 34 Nehru Place, New Delhi 110 019. 2.The Manager, IFFCO TOKIO, Shop No. 13, Shakti Complex, Near Gole Diggi, Bathinda. ...Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM : Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member For the Complainant : Sh. P.P. Nayyar Advocate. For the Opposite parties : Exparte. O R D E R LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as ’Act’) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 25,000/- as price of the Motor-cycle ; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and Rs. 5500/- as cost of the complaint. 2. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that he had purchased an Insurance Policy for his Motor-cycle bearing Registration No. PB-03M-2967 for the period from 3.6.06 to 2.6.07. Insurance Cover Note No. 33313053 was issued. He alongwith Suraj Singh Ex. Sarpanch S/o Natha Singh had gone to the shop of Bant Ram & Sons, Commission Agents at Sangat Mandi at about 4.00 p.m. Motor-cycle was parked outside the shop. After about an hour, he came back and found that Motor-cycle was missing. Efforts were made to search it but to no effect. Police officials were contacted for getting the case registered. It was not registered. They had given direction that first of all efforts be made to trace the Motor-cycle as sometimes Motor-cycle is taken by some-one by mistake by using his own key. Ultimately case with FIR No. 60 dated 15.6.07 under Section 379 was registered in Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda. When matter was brought to the notice of the opposite Insurance Company, its agent had directed him to hand over copy of the FIR and other documents to him. Letter dated 26.2.08 was received by him from the opposite parties through which query was put as to why delay was caused in giving the information to the Insurance Company and as to why FIR was lodged with delay. Explanation was submitted by way of writing letter. Requests were made to the opposite parties to accept the claim but they were not acceded to. Ultimately letter dated 30.3.08 was received by him from the opposite parties according to which his claim was treated as no claim. He alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 3. Registered A.D. Post notice was issued to opposite party No. 1 on 2.5.08. Neither registered cover nor A.D. was received back till 10.6.08 i.e. after expiry of period of more than 30 days. Accordingly, opposite party No. 1 was deemed to have been duly served. Since no-one came present on its behalf, it has been proceeded against exparte. 4. Opposite party No. 2 was served for 30.5.08. He did not turn up to contest the complaint. Accordingly, he has been proceeded against exparte. 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant tendered photocopy of Insurance Policy (Ex. C-1), photocopy of FIR (Ex.C-2), photocopy of letter dated 26.2.08 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of reply (Ex. C-4), photocopy of letter dated 30.3.08 (Ex. C-5), his affidavit (Ex. C-6), affidavit of Sh. Suraj Singh (Ex. C-7), photocopy of R.C. (Ex. C-8) and the photocopy of Police Report (Ex. C-9) in exparte evidence. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record. 7. Complainant reiterates his version in his affidavit Ex. C-6. It stands corroborated with the affidavit Ex. C-7 of Sh. Suraj Singh. They prove that the Motor-cycle of the complainant was stolen by someone on 2.6.07 when it was parked outside the shop of Bant Ram & Sons, Commission Agents. Efforts were made to search it but to no effect. Police officials were contacted but they did not register the case. Direction was given by them to search Motor-cycle from the nearby places where it was stolen. When they and police officials failed to trace it, case was registered on 15.6.07 vide FIR copy of which is Ex. C-2. This Motor-cycle was insured with IFFCO TOKIO Insurance Company for the period from 3.6.06 to 2.6.07 for Rs. 25,000/- which is Insured’s Declared Value as is evident from Ex. C-1. Opposite Insurance Company sent letter copy of which is Ex. C-3 regarding the claim of complainant. It demanded explanation regarding the reasons for delay in reporting theft to it and and the reasons for delay in reporting the theft to the police authorities. Complainant sent reply of this letter copy of which Ex. C-4 furnishing the information required by the opposite Insurance Company. Criminal case registered regarding theft of Motor-cycle has been sent as untraced as per report of the Police as is evident from Ex. C-9. Claim has been repudiated on the ground that vehicle was stolen on 2.6.07 and FIR was lodged on 15.6.07. It is also their plea that loss or damage giving rise to a claim under the policy was to be intimated to the Insurers immediately. In these circumstances, claim has been treated as ’No claim”. Material question for determination is as to whether repudiation of the claim on this ground is justified. Insurance Company does not dispute the fact of the theft of Motor-cycle in the repudiation letter dated 30.3.08. Evidence of the complainant has gone unchallenged and unrebutted and the opposite parties have not cared to contest the complaint. Terms and conditions are not before us indicating that if the claim was not filed immediately after occurrence, the same would not be entertained. In these circumstances, if there is condition that loss or damage is to be intimated immediately, the condition is only directory. Hence, claim could not be repudiated on this ground. For this, we are fortified by the observations of the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of National Insurance Company Limited and another Vs. Chamkaur Singh II(1998) CPJ 325. In the case of Torent Securities Private Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited 2007 CTJ 384 (CP)(NCDRC), claim was rejected on the ground that intimation of the accident was given after about 13-1/2 months. Hon’ble National Commission directed the Insurance Company to pay the Insured amount with cost. There is nothing before us that immediate registration of the case is sine qua non for allowing the claim. Moreover, complainant lodged the information with the police. Despite this, case was not registered. It was for the police to register the case or not immediately. It was registered by the police officials on 15.6.07 and case has been sent as untraced. In these circumstances when complainant has proved the theft of the Motor-cycle and case has been sent as untraced, repudiation of the claim is arbitrary, illegal and not justified. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 8. Now questions arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Once it has been proved that stolen Motor-cycle has not been recovered, it has to be taken to be the total loss of the vehicle. In such a situation, its Insured’s Declared Value is payable as has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gurjant Singh, First Appeal No. 1342 of 2005 decided on 31.1.2006. Hence, it is a fit case for issuing direction to the opposite parties to pay Insured’s Declared value under the policy i.e. Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from 20.10.07 (the date calculated on expiry of three months period after lodging of the claim, a period required for processing the claim in an effective manner in normal course ) till realisation. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment. There is no case to allow it in the face of the relief going to be accorded as above, particularly in view of the authority in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Miss Bhupinder Kaur (Minor) and others 2002(2) CLT 646, wherein Hon’ble State Commission of Punjab held that interest is not granted within the contract between the insured and insurer, but within the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act on deficiency in rendering service being established for compensating the complainant. Held accordingly. 9. In the result, complaint is allowed exparte against the opposite parties with cost of Rs 1,000/-. Complainant and opposite parties are directed to do as under :- i) Complainant would transfer the ownership of the Motor-cycle in the name of opposite Insurance Company through its Manager i.e. Opposite party No. 2 within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ii) Opposite parties would pay Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 20.10.07 till payment in case the Motor-cycle is transferred in the name of the opposite Insurance Company within two months as has been referred to above. In case complainant fails to transfer the Motor-cycle in its name, he would not be entitled to interest after the expiry of two months after the receipt of copy of this order. In case, he transfers the ownership of the motorcycle after two months after the receipt of copy of this order, he would be entitled to receive Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest @9% P.A upto two months after the date of receipt of copy of his order. 10. Compliance with regard to payment of cost be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be also consigned. Pronounced : 11-06-2008 (Lakhbir Singh ) President (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member ’iki’