Haryana

Karnal

CC/37/2015

Narender Pal S/o Mohinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Y.S. Chauhan

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 37 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt.04.03.2015

                                                                Date of decision:21.12.2016

 

Narender Pal son of Shri Mohinder Singh resident of House no.842, Sector-16 Urban Estate Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional office, opposite Bus Stand Karnal.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Party.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Y.S. Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Gurmeet Singh Advocate for the Opposite party.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he got insured his Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05-V-4797 with opposite party, vide policy no.35360131110100007070, valid from 7.3.2012 to 6.3.2013. On 17.7.2012 he went to house no.281 Gali no.1 Hansi Chowk, Karnal to meet his parents and parked the motorcycle in front of the house. After 20 minutes when he came out, the motorcycle was not found there. He gave necessary information to opposite party and on the asking of the opposite party, he lodged First Information Report no.650 dated 17.7.2012. He lodged the claim with the opposite party and completed all the required formalities including the submission of the untraced report of the police dated 13.06.2014. The opposite party postponed the matter on one pretext or the other inspite of his repeated requests and finally refused to pay his claim. Ultimately, he got served registered legal notice dated 22.08.2014 upon the opposite party, but the same also did not yield any result. The acts and conduct of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct and that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, this forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant did not take proper care of his motorcycle and left the same without locking. He also did not submit the untraced report of the police accepted by the court. Even duly transferred Registration Certificate of the vehicle in the name of the opposite party was not submitted. Therefore, his claim could not be settled as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C11 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Shree Ram Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4  have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6                 The motorcycle of the complainant bearing registration no.HR-05-V-4797 was insured with opposite party for the period of 7.3.2012 to 6.3.2013. The said motorcycle was stolen on 17.7.2012, while the same was parked by the complainant in front of the house of his parents at Hansi Chowk, Karnal. He informed the opposite party and lodged First Information Report no.650 dated 17.7.2012 regarding the theft. He lodged claim with the opposite party, but his claim was not paid.

7.                As per the written statement of the opposite party, the complainant did not satisfy that he took proper care of the motorcycle and left it locked in the street, and he had not submitted the untraced report duly accepted by the court and duly transferred Registration Certificate of the vehicle in the name of the opposite party, therefore, his claim could not be settled as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite party put a great thrust upon the contention that the complainant had not taken proper care of the motorcycle and he parked the same in the street without locking, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the policy the claim was not payable. He further canvassed that the complainant did not submit untraced report of the motorcycle submitted by the police and the order of accepting the said report by the court. It has further been argued that the complainant did not submit the transferred registration certificate of the motorcycle in favour of the opposite party. He lastly argued that in view of the aforesaid grounds the claim was not payable to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

9.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that the opposite party has not produced any evidence worth the name from which even an inference may be drawn that the motorcycle was not locked by the complainant while parking the same in the street in front of house of his parents. Had the motorcycle not been locked by the complainant at the time of parking the same, such fact could be mentioned by the police in its investigation report, but the opposite party has not produced any such report of investigation by the police. Mere fact that the complainant did not specifically state in the report that the motorcycle was locked by him, does not establish in any manner that he had not locked the motorcycle at the time of parking the same in the street. A person whose vehicle is stolen cannot be expected to state specifically in his police report that the vehicle was locked or left unlocked by him at the time of parking the same. An ordinary man would only state that his vehicle was stolen while lying parked in the street. Therefore, argument of learned counsel for the opposite party that the motorcycle was not locked by the complainant while parking the same in the street, cannot be accepted.

10.              The opposite party has produced the copy of the letter dated 15.2.2013 Ex.OP3 asking the complainant to submit untraced report from the competent authority for disposal of his claim. The copy of the letter of the complainant dated 3.11.2014 Ex.C9 shows that he had received the untraced report on 18.7.2014 and Photostat copy of the untraced report alongwith said letter was sent to the opposite party. The complainant has even filed the copy of the untraced report dated 13.6.2014 as Ex.C1. The factum of the untraced report submitted by the police on 13.6.2014 has also been mentioned in the registered legal notice sent to the opposite party, the copy of which is Ex.C7. After getting the untraced report, the opposite party must have considered the claim of the complainant but it appears that the claim was not allowed even after getting the untraced report. The opposite party has not to produce any document which may show that the complainant was asked to submit the registration certificate transferred in the name of the opposite party, for making payment of the claim.

11.              In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, non-payment of the claim of the complainant without any cogent reason certainly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The factum of theft of the motorcycle of the complainant has not been disputed, therefore, the opposite party was bound to make payment of the claim of the complainant. Insured value of the motorcycle was mentioned in the insurance policy Ex.C5 as Rs.20,000/-, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the insured value as compensation from the opposite party.

12.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- as insured amount to the complainant  alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 21.12.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member