Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 167.

                                                          Instituted on     : 09.07.2013.

                                                          Decided on       : 16.07.2015.

Satish Kumar s/o Sh. Bhaiya Ram R/o H.No.828/35, Janta Colony, Rohtak Now residing at New Vijay Nagar, Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. 313, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rothak-124001, PhoneNo.01262-213977,212543, Fax No.01262-210878.

                                                          ……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

Present:       Complainant in person with Ms.Jyotee Solanki Advocate.

                   Sh.A.S.Malik, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is registered owner of a motorcycle bearing its registration  No.12J-3484 which was fully insured with the opposite party.  It is averred that on 01.08.2012 the alleged motorcycle had been stolen. He informed the police as well as the Insurance company and submitted all the documents with the opposite party but the opposite party is delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. It is averred that the opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the genuine claim of the complainant.

2.                          On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that there is delay regarding the intimation of alleged theft to the opposite party on 03.08.2012 i.e. after 4 days which is direct breach of terms and conditions of policy and law. A letter dated 22.04.2013 was sent to the complainant regarding the settlement of claims as “No claim” which is self explanatory.  It is averred that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/F and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex.R1, document Ex.R2 to Ex.R6 and has closed his evidence.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          In the present case insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed. As per cover note Ex.PW1/C, the vehicle was insured with the opposite party and the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.18500/-. It is also not disputed that as per copy of FIR Ex.PW1/F, the theft of vehicle had taken place on 01.08.2012 and the FIR was lodged on 04.08.2012. After the theft complainant filed the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party vide its reply has submitted that there was delay of 4 days in lodging the FIR and a letter dated 22.04.2013 was sent to the complainant regarding the settlement of claim as “No Claim” which is self explanatory.

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the letter dated 22.04.2013 as alleged regarding ‘No Claim’ has not been placed on record by the opposite party. Regarding the delayed intimation to the police it is observed that as per the claim intimation letter Ex.R2, the complainant had given the intimation of theft on 100 number immediately and it was the police who lodged the FIR after 2 days. As per the investigation report Ex.R5 also the investigator came to know from the police that the VT of this theft was done on 1.8.2012 but a written report was not given by the police.  Hence from the documents placed on record  it is proved that there is no delay in intimating the police by the complainant and as such the repudiation of genuine claim of the complainant by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. In this regard we have  placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(3)CLT447 titled as Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manoj Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Repudiation- On the ground that there was delay of eleven days in lodging the F.I.R. and delay of 33 days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company-Whether violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy?-Held-No-FIR lodged and intimation was also given to the Insurance Company-Thus, it is amply proved that the vehicle was stolen and could not be traced-it was a genuine claim of the complainant-Appeal dismissed” and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2011-4PLR titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravi Dutt Sharma has held that : “Merely because there was a delay on the part of the insured to inform the petitioner-company would not be a reason enough to decline or repudiate the claim and it is further held that Insurance companies are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium-Intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other” and as per 2008(3)CLT 377 titled Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that: “If a particular claim to compensation is possible on the material on record, it should not be denied on hypertechnical pleas that claim was limited by complainant to a lower amount.  In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.

 8.                        In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite party shall pay the insured declared value of vehicle i.e. Rs.18500/-(Rupees eighteen thousand five hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 09.07.2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. Form No.26, 28, 29, 30, 35, Original R.C., Subrogation letter, Indemnity Bond and Affidavit of transferee etc. to the opposite party failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision.  Complaint is allowed accordingly.

9.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

10.                        File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

16.07.2015.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.