Haryana

Sonipat

CC/172/2015

SHRI KANWAL SINGH S/O DHOLA RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SURESH MALIK

17 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.172 of 2015

                                Instituted on:27.05.2015

                                Date of order:17.05.2016

 

Kanwal Singh son of Dhola Ram, r/o village Juan, tehsil and distt. Sonepat at present Mayur Vihar, Gali no.14, Sonepat.

…Complainant.  

Versus

 

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch office Old DC road, near Gurudwara, Sonepat through its Manager.                                      

 

                                                      …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Suresh Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Shri Ajay GargAdv. for respondent. 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that his motor cycle no.HR10S/9612 which was insured with the respondent  was unfortunately stolen on 30.12.2013.  FIR no.519 dated 31.12.2013 u/s 379 IPC was lodged.  The complainant also intimated the respondent regarding the theft of the vehicle and has also lodged the claim by submitting all the relevant documents, but till date, the respondent has not made the payment of the claim amount to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, the complainant has come to this Forum  and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that there is a delay of 216 days in giving intimation to the insurance company from the date of theft of the vehicle.  The complainant’s claim was rightly repudiated on 7.7.2015. Shri RN Sharma, thoroughly investigated the claim of theft, but explanation on the part of the complainant was not found satisfactory.  The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.54360/- and not Rs.59000/-.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          As per the respondent, there is a delay of 216 days in giving intimation to the insurance company from the date of theft of the vehicle.  The complainant’s claim was rightly repudiated on 7.7.2015. Shri RN Sharma, thoroughly investigated the claim of theft, but explanation on the part of the complainant was not found satisfactory.  The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.54360/- and not Rs.59000/-.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          But in our view, the repudiation of the claim on the ground of delay in intimation to the company, is wrong and not legally justified and the complainant is definitely entitled to get the claim amount from the respondent insurance company.  The observation of this Forum is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula rendered in First appeal no.43 of 2014 titled as Shri Ram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar, vide order dated 10.3.2014.

          Further we have perused the surveyor report of Shri RN Sharma dated 23.8.2014 and in his report, the surveyor has mentioned that theft of motor cycle no.HR10S/9612 is genuine.  Thus, keeping in view the above said order of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula and report of surveyor, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.54360/-  to the complainant.  The respondent is directed to make the payment of the above said amount 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 this order till realization. The complainant is also directed to submit the form no.29 and 30, letter of subrogation and letter of indemnity with the respondent 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)                        (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                             DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 17.05.2016