Haryana

Sonipat

CC/79/2015

RAJENDER KUMAR S/O DAYAL CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MOHIT KUMAR

08 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.79 of 2015

                             Instituted on:09.03.2015

                             Date of order:14.10.2015

 

Rajender Kumar son of late Sh. Dayal Chand, r/o H.No.41, Eight Marla, Sonepat.

…Complainant.       

Versus

 

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sonepat through its Concerned Officer/Divisional Manager/Director.

                                                …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mohit Kumar, Advocate for Complainant.

Sh.  DS Malik, Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the owner of TVS Victor NO.HR10E/8842 which was insured with the respondent, but unfortunately stolen.  The complainant informed the respondent and lodged the FIR no.260/2008 with PS Civil Lines, Sonepat. The complainant has lodged the claim with the respondent and also submitted all the required documents such as FIR, copy of untraced report and copy of final report.  But till date, the respondent has not paid even a single penny to the complainant towards the theft claim of the vehicle in question and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the present complaint is time barred and is the result of after thought as the present complaint has been filed after a gap of seven years.  NO information has ever been received by the respondent.  The untraced report is ordered on 6.8.2012 from the court of Dr A.S. Tinjan, the then ld. ACJM Sonepat, but the same was obtained by one Shri Paras son of Ramesh Kumar Hasija vide RTI application dated 11.7.2014 which clearly shows that the complainant has never bothered to lodge the complaint  regarding the theft with the respondent and has not even bothered to obtain the certified copy of the untraced report.   On 17.7.2014, an application was given to the respondent which was received by the respondent, but it was of no use as the same has been filed with an ulterior motive and that too after a delay of more than seven years.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent. So, he 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 both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the present complaint is time barred and is the result of after thought as the present complaint has been filed after a gap of seven years.  NO information has ever been received by the respondent.  The untraced report is ordered on 6.8.2012 from the court of Dr A.S. Tinjan, the then ld. ACJM Sonepat, but the same was obtained by one Shri Paras son of Ramesh Kumar Hasija vide RTI application dated 11.7.2014 which clearly shows that the complainant has never bothered to lodge the complaint  regarding the theft with the respondent and has not even bothered to obtain the certified copy of the untraced report.   On 17.7.2014, an application was given to the respondent which was received by the respondent, but it was of no use as the same has been filed with an ulterior motive and that too after a delay of more than seven years.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent. So, he is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          But we find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent.  Theft of the motor cycle has taken place on 15.8.2008 and immediately on the next day i.e. 16.8.2008 FIR was lodged with the concerned police station by the complainant.  The plea of the respondent that no information was ever received by the company from the complainant, is not tenable in the eyes of law because the letter marked as JN dated 22.8.2008 was issued by the Hawa Singh investigator to the complainant, vide which the said investigator demanded certain documents/papers from the complainant.  Meaning thereby, the respondent company have received the intimation regarding the theft of vehicle from the company, that’s why the investigator was asked to investigate the theft case of the complainant.  In our view, the respondent has taken the lame excuse to escape himself from their legal liabilities.  However, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to respondent.  The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.13500/- at the time of its vehicle. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to deduct 15% amount from the IDV and to pay the balance amount to the complainant within a period of 60 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 till its realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/- (Rs.one thousand) for causing harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

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

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

          File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)           (Nagender Singh)                    Member, DCDRF,             Member, DCDRF        President, DCDRF,

Sonepat.             Sonepat.             Sonepat.

 

ANNOUNCED 14.10.2015