As per Shri Atul Alsi, Hon'ble President.

1. The complainant has filed complaint case u/s. 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the arbitrary repudiation of insurance claim for the reason of delay in registration of FIR and non submission of required documents and thereby claiming  IDV of truck of Rs.17,00,000 alongwith compensation and cost of Rs.1,30,000/-.

The story in short is as under :-

2. The complainant owned a truck of Ashok Leyland bearing no CG-07-CA-9585 insured with O.P. under the policy No.-16010031150100016913 for the period between  04 10.32016 to 9.3.2017 for the sum assured of Rs.17,00,000/-.
3. On 17.5.2016 at about 7 p.m. the driver of the truck Prakash Singh Rajput due to ill health parked the truck near tea stall in locked position and went and when came back at night 11.30 p.m. the truck was missing. The offence to that effect has been registered with Gittikhadan police station on dated 18.05.2016 vide crime no.214/2016 under IPC., the complainant had filed insurance claim along with relevant documents after due intimation to the O.P. and after submission of a final report at JMFC court on dated 3.5.2018.The O.P. failed to disburse the insurance claim amount after issuing notice to O.P. through advocate on dated 16.8.2021amounts to deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps.
4. The O.P. had filed their reply and admitted insurance policy of the complainant and submitted that complainant vehicle was missing on dated 17.5.2016 and reported on 29.6.2016, therefore 33 days delay in filing complaint with no satisfactory explanation for the reason of delay.  The application of intimation of theft was alleged to be given to police station officer on dated 24.5.2016 by the complainant, the date and stamp has not been appeared for receipt of complainant on the application by the police authority, therefore there is no merit in the present case and liable to be dismissed with cost.
5. Counsel for complaint argued that the complainant has moved application by way of intimation for theft of vehicle to the Gattikhadan police station, Nagpur and with endorsement with receipt of complaint by police station officer on dated 24.5.2016. The complainant after the search of vehicle and when the vehicle was not traced out the offence came to be registered on dated 29.6.2016 by the police station. It is the routine practice of police station not to register the FIR in missing of truck but initially adviced to search the vehicle therefore rejection of insurance claim amount to deficiency of service.
6. Counsel for O.P. argued that the incidence of theft occurred on dated 17.5.2016 and registration of FIR after 33 days on dated 29.6.2016 without assigning any reason on the part of complainant, therefore the investigator cannot be appointed to investigate to incidence and estimate of loss of vehicle, therefore the complaint has no merit and deserve to be dismissed with cost.

REASONING.

7. The complaint owned truck bearing no CG-07-CA-9585, Ashok Leyland, insured with O.P. under the policy-16010031150100016913 for the period between  04 10.3.2016 to 9.3.2017 for insurance value of Rs.17,00,000/-.  On dated 17.5.2016 the incident of theft was occurred and the offence to that effect has been registered by Gittikhadan Police Station , Nagpur on dated 29.6.2016 vide crime no.214/2016 u/s. 379 of I.P.C. as per written complaint moved by Prakashsigh Rajput on dated 29.6.2016 to the Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur. After investigation of crime the police station submitted ‘A’ summery report to the GMFC and the complaint obtained ‘A’ final report on dated 26.4.2018 and submitted to insurance company on dated 3.5.2018. The complaint could not get information about the disbursement of insurance claim due to lockdown and Covid from March-2020 therefore issued legal notice through his advocate on dated 16.8.2021 for non disbursement of insurance claim.
8. It is general practice of police station that the police station office initially adviced  the complainant to search the vehicle and if not found then accept the complaint in respect of theft of vehicle therefore the complainant FIR has been registered on dated 26.62016 for the incident occurred on dated 17.5.2016 therefore late registration of FIR is bonafide reason which do not breach the whole policy therefore the complainant is entitled to receive  the compensation 70% of IDV value i.e.11,90,000/- with compensation and cost amounted to Rs.20,000/-.

ORDER

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. O.P. is directed to pay the 70 % of IDV value of Truck that is Rs.11,90,000/- to the complainant towards insurance claim under the policy bearing No. bearing no.16010031150100016913.
3. O.P. is also directed to pay compensation alongwith cost of litigation of  Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.
4. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.