BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

                                Complaint No.62 of 2015

                                Instituted on:03.03.2015

                                Date of order:14.09.2015

Dharam Pal son of Sube Singh resident of H.No.174, Village Barwala, Delhi at present r/o Gali nho.3, Sai Puram Sonepat.

…Complainant.  

Versus

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. First Floor, Vardhman Complex, Opp. Civil

Hospital, Ashram Chowk, Sonepat through its Manager.

                                                     …Respondent.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Kumar Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. DS Malik Adv. 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 therein that he is registered owner of Wagon R Car no.DL-5CC-6385 which was insured with the respondent and unfortunately, the same was stolen on 16.7.2013.  The police lodged the FIR no.482 dated 27.7.2013 u/s 379 IPC. The complainant intimated the respondent about the theft of the vehicle on the next date.  He also lodged the claim and submitted all the relevant documents with the respondent. But the respondent has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR and also delay in giving the intimation to the respondent.  Thus, the complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the claim was rightly repudiated by the respondent because the complainant has intimated the respondent about theft of the vehicle after a gap of 3½ months.  There is also a delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR with the policy by the complainant.  So, the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  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.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the claim was rightly repudiated by the respondent because the complainant has intimated the respondent about theft of the vehicle after a gap of 3½ months.  There is also a delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR with the policy by the complainant.  So, the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          In the present case, theft of the vehicle has taken place 16.7.2013 whereas FIR was lodged on 27.7.2013 with the concerned police station.  In our view, the police officials must have asked the complainant to search his vehicle at his own  and if it is not traced out, then they will lodged the FIR. When the vehicle was not traced out, the police of PS Jhajjar lodged the FIR no.482.                  

          In our view, lodging of FIR was not in the hands of the complainant as his duty was only to inform the police authorities, which he did.  

          The other plea of the respondent that there is delay in intimation of about 3½ months on the part of the complainant is not tenable in the eyes of law. 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 and keeping in view the above said order of the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, it is held that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is wrong, illegal and unjustified.

         In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the insurance policy regarding the vehicle in question.  The theft of the vehicle has also taken place during the validity of the insurance policy.  So, it is held that the claim of the complainant is legal and justified and the complainant is definitely entitled to get some sort of relief against the respondent insurance company. In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if 25% amount is deducted from the IDV of Rs.1,05,000/- of the vehicle in question. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to deduct 25% amount from the IDV of Rs.1,05,000/- and to make the payment of balance 75% amount  to the complainant within a period of one month 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 filing of the present complaint till its realization.  The complainant is also directed to submit the letter of subrogation, indemnity bond, affidavit and also to transfer the vehicle in the name of the respondent insurance company.

           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 cost.

         File be consigned to the record-room.

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced: 14.09.2015