Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 248

                                                                   Instituted on     : 02.04.2021

                                                                   Decided on       : 18.04.2024.

Karamvir s/o Vijaypal r/o village-KheriAsra, District Jhajjar.

                                                                                      ..............Complainant.

                             Vs.

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Delhi Road, Model Town, Rohtak through its Manager.

                                                                             ……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh.SumitSiwach, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered  owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.HR-63D/0759and the same was fully insured with the respondent vide policy No.1222003181350048480 valid from 13.05.2017 to 12.05.2020 for an IDV of Rs.3515000/-. On 28.02.2019 the alleged vehicle was stolen from Thakur Dhaba, Kachhi Parking, SGT Nagar, Delhi and complainant reported the mater to police and a case vide FIR No.7342 dated 28.02.2019 u/s 379 IPC was got registered in P.S. SamaypurBadli. Inspite of best efforts, police could not trace out the vehicle so far.  Complainant approached the opposite party and requested them to disburse the claim amount in his favour and submitted all the relevant documents as desired by the respondent. But despite repeated requests of the complainant, claim amount has not been disbursed to the complainant. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.3515000/-  alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of theft of vehicle till the date of actual realisation  and also to pay Rs.200000/-for causing unnecessary mental tension, harassment and physical pain and Rs.11,000/ litigation expenses etc.to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party filed its written reply and has submitted that the driver of the vehicle left the vehicle un-attended in the night and went to his house which is 80KM from the sight of theft.  The insurance company wrote many letters and final reminder on dated 06.09.2019 and 29.10.2019 for the requirement of documents but just as any repair bill/service record prior to theft etc. but the insured did not reply the letters written by the insurance company. He did not co-operate with the insurance company therefore ‘No claim’ was passed according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy  and the insurance company is not liable to pay any claim to the insured. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8  and closed his evidence on 12.03.2024. At the time of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant has also placed on record documents ‘Annexure-JNA’ and ‘Annexure-JN-B’. Ld. Counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence on 29.08.2023.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that vehicle was unattended at the time of theft and there is no jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the present case. As per the insurance company the vehicle was hypothecated with Tata motor Finance Limited whereas the perusal of R.C. shows that vehicle was hypothecated with ICICI Bank Ltd. Complainant placed on record a document Ex.C8, No Dues Certificate issued by Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Perusal of Ex.C8 shows that there is no vehicle number engine number and chassis number so at the time of arguments complainant placed on record a certificate issued by ICICI Bank as ‘Annexure JNA’ and another document ‘Annexure JNB’. Perusal of Annexure JNB shows that agreement has been terminated between  the parties regarding the vehicle in question.  i.e. Tata Motors and complainant and in this document  vehicle no. is mentioned. Meaning thereby the loan amount has been repaid by the complainant  to the financer. Regarding the plea taken by the opposite aprty about the jurisdiction of this Commission, it is observed that ‘No claim Letter’ Ex.R2 has been issued by the Divisional Office, Rohtak. Hence this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. Regarding the violation of term and conditions of the policy that vehicle was left unattended, we have placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India of (2010) 4 SCC 536   titled as AmlenduSahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, whereby Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “Even if there is a breach of any clause, the claim could not have been repudiated in toto and 75% of the claim as admissible amount, on non-standard basis is allowed”. The law cited above is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. After going through the law cited above and after considering the arguments advanced by ld. Counsel for the opposite party, we hereby allow the complaint on non-standard basis i.e. 75%of IDV(Rs.3515000/-) which is equal to Rs.2636250/-

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2636250/-(Rupees twenty six lacs thirty sixthousand  two hundred and fifty  only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint  i.e. 02.04.2021 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expensesto the complainant within one month from the date of decision.However complainant is directed to complete the formalities i.e. to submit the signed form no.29-30, indemnity bond and subrogation letter (if required by the company) and thereafter opposite party shall comply with the order dated 18.04.2024 of this Commission within one month. Complainant is also directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C.

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

18.04.2024.

                                                          ........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                          ……………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member