Haryana

Sonipat

CC/232/2015

Surender Kumar Verma S/o Harbansh lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager united India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.P. kaushik

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.232 of 2015

                                Instituted on:20.07.2015

                                Date of order:01.12.2015

 

Surender Kumar Verma son of Harbansh Lal, r/o 175/12 Vishnu Nagar, Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

The Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Branch office at Ist Floor, Plot no.78, above Union Bank of India, Delhi road, Sonepat.

 

                                                     …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. SP Kaushik, Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. KS Solanki, Adv. for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

DV Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of Bajaj Discover Motor cycle no.HR11B/8765  which was insured with the respondent for its IDV of Rs.18000/- and unfortunately on 18.5.2013, the said motor cycle was stolen.    FIR no.235 dated 18.5.2013 was lodged  with PS PS Civil Lines, Sonepat . On dated 24.5.2013 intimation to the respondent was given regarding the theft of motor cycle.  The complainant has completed all the formalities and has also submitted all the required documents and has also approached the respondent for the release of the claim amount and , but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant has left his motor cycle unlocked with keys and in this way, he has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.   The complainant never intimated the respondent within time regarding the theft incident of the motor cycle. The complainant informed the respondent on 26.9.2014. So, there is delay on the part of the complainant regarding giving intimation to the insurance company regarding the theft of the motor cycle. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        In evidence, the complainant has placed on record the documents Ex.C1 to C11 in support of his case.

          On the other hand, the respondent has only tendered the affidavit Ex.RW1/A in support of his case.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the complainant never intimated the respondent within time regarding the theft incident of the motor cycle. The complainant informed the respondent on 26.9.2014. So, there is delay on the part of the complainant regarding giving intimation to the insurance company regarding the theft of the motor cycle. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          But we find no force in this contention of the respondent because the document Ex.C3 shows that the complainant has given the intimation in the office of the respondent regarding the theft of his motor cycle on 24.5.2013 and this document bears the stamp of the company.  So, the plea of the respondent that the respondent were intimated by the complainant on 26.9.2014 is not tenable in the eyes of law. 

          The bare perusal of the document Ex.C10 produced by the complainant shows that the vehicle was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 6.10.2012 to 5.10.2013 and it was stolen on 18.5.2013 during the validity of the insurance policy. FIR was got registered vide FIR no.235 dated 18.5.2013 i.e. on the same day with PS Civil Lines, Sonepat. So,  in our view,  since the theft of the motor cycle has taken place during the validity of the insurance policy, definitely the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount from the respondent.   The IDV of the vehicle is Rs.18000/- and thus, we direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.18000/- (Rs.eighteen thousand) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order failing which the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order.  The respondent is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.4000/- (Rs.four thousand) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

           The complainant is also directed to submit form 29, 30, indemnity bond and letter of subrogation with the respondent for getting the RC of the vehicle in question in the name of the insurance company.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced: 01.12.2015