1) This is the complaint regarding, deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party by repudiating the insurance claim of the vehicle of the Complainant.
 

2) The facts of this complaint are that the Complainant had purchased Toyota qualis motor vehicle for his official and personal use on 31/12/2003 for total price of Rs.8,10,566.72 from dealer M/s.USL Shinrai Automobiles Ltd.
 

3) The above vehicle was insured for a value of Rs.7,70,000/- by paying the premium of Rs.29,984/-. The vehicle was ensured for one year from 05/01/2004 from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had issued Motor Insurance Cover Note No.MRO-A-272092 from 05/01/2004. While the vehicle was under insurance cover it was stolen in the night of 14/01/2004 and 15/01/2004 when it was parked out side the residence of the Complainant.
 

4) The Complainant lodged FIR at Shivaji Park Police Station, Dadar, Mumbai vide FIR No.08/04, dtd.15/01/2004.
 

5) The Complainant further states that he immediately informed the Opposite Party about the theft and submitted formal claim alongwith copy of cover note. 
 

6) On 21/01/2004 the investigator appointed by the Opposite Party came to the Complainant and informed him that he was appointed by the Opposite Party to investigate the insurance claim regarding the stolen vehicle. The investigator Mr.A.K.Bajaj asked for F.I.R. and some documents. The Complainant also informed different authorities regarding the theft of his above said vehicle. 
 

7) The Complainant stated that the investigator required the following documents -
 

     a) Letter to RTO. 

     b) Letter of subrogation and leter of indemnity. 

     c) RTO Form No.28 – 29,30,35 dully filled by the Complainant in duplicate.
 

     The Complainant stated that he duly complied with the above requirements and submitted the above documents to the Opposite Party. He also submitted his consent letter for accepting the amount of Rs.7,70,000/- (Insured amount) as per the advice of one Mr.Pradeep Chavan, the Development Officer of the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party neither settled the claim nor sent any communication to the Complainant. 
 

8) Meanwhile the Complainant also received the Certificate of Insurance Policy No.111400/31/03/07985 valid from 05/01/2004 to 04/01/2005 insuring the above said vehicle for the value of Rs.7,70,000/-.
 

9) The Complainant then sent letters to the Opposite Party requesting it to settle the claim vide his letters dtd.09/11/04, 28/03/05, 30/04/05. The newly appointed investigator again asked for some additional documents to be submitted. Accordingly all the required documents were submitted to the investigator by 16/09/05, still the claim was not approved. 
 

10) On 21/07/2007 the Complainant received a letter from Opposite Party dtd.18/07/07 informing him that “please note that your claim file stands closed on account of serial no.1 & 3 below –
 

      i) Inspite of letters/reminders sent to you, you have not complied with required papers/documents. 

     ii) As you have withoudrawn your claim by giving your consent through your letter 13/06/2007. We are closing your claim file as No Claim. 

    iii) We are closing your claim file on account of the following reason Non compliance of Sec.64 VB and several problems.
 

11) The Complainant alleged that the Opposite Party has repudiated the claim after 3 ½ years without giving him any opportunity of hearing on the above points. He further alleged that the reason given above, for repudiating the claim are without any basis, and false. The Complainant then sent a letter to the Opposite Party dtd.26/07/2007 and notice dated 29/03/2008 and 11/06/2008, and again requested it to settle the claim. 
 

12) Lastly the Complainant prayed for the amount of price of the vehicle insured, compensation for mental and physical harassment, etc. and cost of the complaint plus interest on the price amount of the vehicle. 
 

The complaint was admitted and the Opposite Party was served with the notice. Opposite Party appeared through its Advocate and filed its written statement wherein the Opposite Party has admitted the incident of theft of the vehicle of the Complainant and it’s insurance with it.
 

13) Further the Opposite Party also admitted to have appointed a surveyor for settlement of the Complainant’s claim and in subsequent paras upto 21, the Opposite Party has denied the contentions of the Complainant without giving any documentary proof or reasonable ground. Finally the Opposite Party has made following points - 

            a) Complaint is time barred. 

           b) There is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. 

           c) Complaint is uncorroborated by any evidence. 

           d) Cost be given to the Opposite Party.
 

14) The Opposite Party has submitted affidavit of one Shri.V.K.Kulkarni in support of it’s written statement but did not submit any documentary evidence. 
 

      The Complainant submitted his affidavit-in-evidence as well as submission (written arguments) Opposite Party did not submit written arguments. Complainant also submitted the copies of the following documents in support of his complaint –
 

1)Sale invoice of the vehicle Qualis car inquestion dtd.31/12/2003. 

2)Insurance Cover note issued by the Opposite Party dtd.05/01/2004(Date of issue). 

3)Delivery note of the vehicle issued to Complainant dtd.08/01/2004. 

4)Registration book. 

5)Road tax receipt dtd.09/01/2004 & 13/01/2004. 

6)F.I.R. dtd.15/01/2004. 

7)A blurred copy of letter from A.K.Bjaj – Investigator of the Opposite Party. 

8)Letter dtd.28/01/2004 to R.T.O., T.C., Sr.P.I.. 

9)Form MVT Rule 58(1)(2) from Police Station, Shivaji Park to Transport Commissioner regarding particulars of stolen vehicle. 

10)Letter from T.C. Maharashtra to all R.T.O.s informing the theft of above vehicle. 

11)Letter from R.T.O. Mumbai Central to Complainant. 

12)Letter from Complainant to Opposite Party dtd.09/06/2004. 

13)Policy No.111400/31/03/07958 issued by Opposite Party. 

14)Letter dtd.15/07/2004 from investigator to the Standard Chartered Bank. 

15)Letter dtd.16/07/2007 from Standard Chartered Bank to Opposite Party. 

16)Letter dtd.17/07/2004 from Standard Chartered Bank to Complainant. 

17)Letter dtd.09/11/2004 from Complainant to Standard Chartered Bank. 

18)Letter dtd.28/03/2005 from Complainant to Opposite Party without signature mentioning only sd 

19)Letter dtd.28/03/2005 from Complainant to Opposite Party without signature mentioning only sd 

20)Letter dtd.30/04/2005 from Complainant to Opposite Party without signature mentioning only sd 

21)Letter dtd.14/05/2005 from Om Nityanand Enterprizes to Complainant. 

22)Letter dtd.10/06/2005 from Om Nityanand Enterprizes to Complainant. 

23)Letter dtd.13/06/2005 from Complainant to Om Nityanand Enterprizes. 

24)Letter dtd.23/07/2005 from Om Nityanand Enterprizes to Complainant. 

25)Letter dtd.12/08/2005 from Om Nityanand Enterprizes to Complainant. 

26)Letter dtd.18/08/2005 from Complainant to Om Nityanand Enterprizes. 

27)Letter dtd.20/08/2005 from Om Nityanand Enterprizes to Complainant. 

28)Letter dtd.18/07/2007 from Opposite Party to Complainant. 

29)Letter dtd.26/07/2007 from Complainant to Opposite Party. 

30)Notice dtd.29/03/2008 from Advocate of Complainant to Opposite Party. 

31)Notice dtd.11/06/2008 from Advocate of Complainant to Opposite Party.
 

15) We heard the Advocate for both the parties and perused all the papers filed by the parties and our findings are as follows -
 

      The Complainant had insured his Qualis Car MH01-MA5527 with the Opposite Party under a Cover Note No.MRA-272092 valid from 05/01/2004 to 04/02/2004 and Insurance Policy No.111400/31/03/07985 valid from 05/01/2004 to 04/01/2005 for Rs.7,70,000/- issued by the Opposite Party.
 

16) While the vehicle was under the cover of above said insurance policy, it was stolen on the night of 14/01/2005 and 15/01/2005 when it was parked outside the house of the Complainant. The Complainant immediately has lodged his F.I.R. at Shivaji Park Police Station, Mumbai vide F.I.R. 8/05 U/s.279 I.P.C. and informed different agencies such as, R.T.O., Transport Commissioner, Opposite Party etc. about the theft of the above said vehicle. this can be seen from the correspondence mentioned in para no.13 above.
 

17)After the claim was submitted to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party had appointed a investigator to investigate claim. As per the queries, the Complainant had complied with the queries raised by the investigator but the Opposite Party had repudiated the claim vide its letter dtd.18/07/2007. The grounds for repudiation were given as follows -
 

         a) The Complainant has not complied with papers/documents. 

         b) The Complainant himself has withdrawn his claim vide his letter dtd.13/06/2007. 

         c) Non compliance of Sec.64B and several problems.
 

18) The minute scrutiny of the documents submitted by the Complainant shows that he had obtained all the necessary documents from the concerned authorities and it was for his benefits that he aught to have submitted them to the investigator of the Opposite Party. Even the investigator had sought certain information vide his letter dtd.15/07/2004 from the Standard Chartered Bank and the said bank had provided the requisite information to him vide its letter dtd.15/07/2004.
 

19) Regarding the 2^nd reason given by the Opposite Party for repudiating the claim is shocking as from all the document we do not find any letter of the Complainant dated 13/06/2007 stating that he had withdrawn his insurance claim of the stolen motor vehicle.
 

20) As for as the 3^rd reason is concerned violation of Sec.64B, the Opposite Party has not produced any record or evidence which would show or establish that the Complainant had violated the provisions of this section. Only averment in the written statement will not prove the contention of the Opposite Party. Therefore, in our view the reason given by the Opposite Party for repudiating the insurance claim of the Complainant are not satisfactory reason on which the claim could be repudiated. Hence, we do not find any merits in the contention of the Opposite Party. However, it is the fact that the vehicle was stolen when it was properly insured by the Complainant and it was the contractual as well as legal obligation on the Opposite Party to indemnify the loss due to theft of the vehicle of the Complainant. Hence, it is the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party to repudiate the insurance claim on 
 

          baseless grounds. We therefore pass the order as follows - 
 

O R D E R

 

i.  Complaint No.221/2009 is partly allowed.
 

     amount. 
 

    compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the Complainant. 
 

    cost of this complaint.
 

v.Opposite Party is directed to comply with the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.