DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 461 of 7.12.2018

                                      Decided on:         10.6.2021

Karanvir Singh, aged about 29 years, son of Randhir Singh, resident of village Kahangarh Gharachon, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala .(Aadhar card No.8696 0826 4854)

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office # D-4-5, Calibre Market, Rajpura, District Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.H.S.Sandhu, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.S.K.Garg, counsel for the Opposite party.                        

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Karanvir Singh  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he purchased a new motor cycle make Bajaj Pulsar DTS-IF-220 bearing engine No.DKYCJL-15689 and chassis No.MD2A13EY9JCL-16136, colour black silver, for an amount of Rs.94068/- from Patran Auto Enterprises, Patiala Road, Patran vide invoice No.13427 dated 16.4.2018. It is averred that the motor cycle was got insured through the above said dealer and also got registered the motor cycle with the Registering Authority, Patiala vide registration No.PB-11-CM-4599.
3. It is further averred that on 17.4.2018, when the complainant was going to Lakhmipur Khiri (UP) to see his relative, on the way at Metro Hotel Rewari(Haryana)  at about 10PM he stopped the vehicle there for the purpose of taking meal and when he came back after taking meal he did not find his motor cycle and the same was stolen by some unknown person. The complainant approached the police and moved an application for lodging the FIR. It was asked by the police to trace out the motor cycle. The complainant made his best efforts to locate the motor cycle but he could not find the same and lateron the police of P.S.City Rewari, registered FIR No.0137 dated 11.5.2018 under Section 379 IPC.  The complainant also lodged the claim with the OP but the OP vide its letter dated 18.7.2018 informed the complainant that the claim cannot be entertained. The complainant also got sent legal notice dated 1.8.2018 to the OP which was duly replied by the OP having denied the purchase of the motor cycle by the complainant and also denied its liability. This act and conduct of the OP is totally illegal as they are duty bound to pay the claim in respect of his stolen vehicle. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to pay the amount of Rs.94068/- as sale price of the motor cycle in question to the complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and also causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raising preliminary objections that late  intimation was given by the complainant to the OP with regard to the theft of the vehicle in question, so the OP is unable to entertain his claim and the complainant was duly informed in this regard vide letter dated 18.7.2018 and also that the complainant was not having valid registration certificate i.e. permanent or temporary registration certificate at the time of theft.
5. On merits it is admitted that the motor cycle in question was insured by the OP for Rs.89,365/- for the period from 16.4.2018 to 15.4.2019 in the name of the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant has given the intimation to the OP with regard to the theft of vehicle on 28.6.2018 which was occurred on 17.4.2018 and further that the FIR was registered on 11.5.2018.As such the OP company is unable to entertain the claim to which the complainant was duly informed. Further more the complainant was not having registration certificate i.e. permanent or temporary at the time of theft. As such the OP was unable to entertain the claim. There is thus no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence,Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajinder Singh,Sr.Div.Manager of the OP alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased the new motor cycle make Bajaj Pulsar bearing engine No.DKYCJL-15689 and chassis No.MD2A13EY9JCL-16136 from Patran. The ld. counsel further argued that it was got insured from the OP from 16.4.2018 to 15.4.2019.The ld. counsel further argued that on 17.4.2018 the complainant was going to Lakhmipur Khiri (UP) to see his relative and stopped the motor cycle at Metro Hotel Rewari (Haryana) at about 10PM.After taking meal, when he came back he found that the motor cycle was stolen. The ld. counsel further argued that thereafter he approached P.S.City Rewari, for registration of FIR on 11.5.2018 and also intimated the OP but the claim was wrongly dismissed.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant lodged FIR after delay on 11.5.2018, so the OP company is unable to entertain the claim. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant was duly informed on 11.7.2018.The ld. counsel has also placed reliance upon the citations Kaushalendra Kumar Mishtra Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi Circuit Bench at Bhopal on 16.2.2012, Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2013(2)C.P.R. 536 and Sadavar Singh Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company decided by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh on 15.5.2018.
11. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and has deposed as per his complaint; Ex.C1 is the legal notice, Ex.C2 is postal receipt, Ex.C3 is the reply to legal notice, Ex.C4 is rejection letter, Ex.C5 is the receipt, Ex.C7 is FIR.
12. On the other hand, Sh.Rajinder Singh, Sr. Divisional Manager of the OP has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and has deposed as per the written statement, Ex.OP1 is policy schedule cum certificate of insurance, Ex.OP2 are rules, Ex.OP3 is claim intimate letter.
13. As per the complainant he purchased new motor cycle make Bajaj Pulsar DTS-IF-220 having engine No.DKYCJL-15689 and chassis No.MD2A13EY9JCL-16136 from Patran and it was got insured with the insurance company. As per the complainant when he was going to Lakhmirpur Khiri (UP) to meet his relative he stopped his motor cycle near Metro Hotel Rewari and when after taking meal he came out the motor cycle was stolen. Ex.C1 is the legal notice in which this fact is mentioned.Ex.C3 is reply to legal notice, Ex.C4 is rejection letter written by the OP to the complainant. It is mentioned that the insurance company has received the intimation on 28.6.2018 regarding the above said theft of the vehicle but the theft was occurred on 17.4.2018.It is also mentioned that the FIR was lodged on 11.5.2018.So they were unable to entertain the claim.
14. Admittedly the vehicle in question was insured vide policy,Ex.OP1 in the name of Karanvir Singh and the premium of Rs.2244/-was paid. The ld. counsel for the OP has argued that there was no temporary or permanent certificate of registration. This ground is without any force as the motor cycle was stolen on the very next day. Engine number and chassis number have been clearly mentioned in the complaint as well as in the policy.
15. Admittedly FIR was got registered with P.S.Rewari.The same was registered on 11.5.2018 at No.137 .From the FIR, it is clear that the offence had occurred on 17.4.2018  at about 10 PM and it cannot be said that false FIR was got registered by the complainant or that the police has registered a false FIR. Intimation was also sent to the insurance company and the copy of the intimation is on the file.
16. When the insurance company has taken the full amount of premium so they are duty bound to pay the amount. Various citations have been cited by the ld. counsel for the OP but all these are not applicable as the motor cycle was stolen on the very next day of the purchase and it was under the insurance policy of the OP and also it was not possible for a owner of a vehicle to get the RC within one day. When engine number and chassis number are very much mentioned in the complaint as well as in the policy Ex.OP1, the OP cannot deny to pay the genuine claim. In the present case there are no documents on the file which can show the rules were also supplied to the complainant when the cover note was given to him. At the time of registering the vehicle it is generally seen that insurance company never gives any rules and regulations to their clients and this is definitely deficiency in service on their part. A lay man does not know that he has to immediately inform the insurance company regarding the stolen of the vehicle. In the present case no doubt there is some delay in intimating the OP regarding the theft on 18.7.2018.As the vehicle was stolen on the very next day, FIR was duly lodged on 11.5.2018 at  P.S.City Rewari, copy of the same is on the file and there is no evidence lead by the OP that FIR was falsely lodged by the complainant but in fact the motor cycle was stolen as pleaded by the complainant. So as the occurrence was occurred on the very next day, FIR was lodged and there is some delay in intimating the insurance company. But the delay is not fatal as this legislation is for the benefit of the consumer and claim of the complainant can not be thrown away merely on the ground that there was some delay in intimating the insurance company. As such the citations referred to by the OP are not helpful in the present case.
17. So due to our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OP is directed to pay the amount of Rs.94068/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of rejection of claim i.e. 18.7.2018 till realization. Parties are left to bear their own costs.           

Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:10.6.2021       

                   Y.S.Matta         Vinod Kumar Gulati       Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                    Member                 Member                                  President