Complainant Bodh Raj has filed the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite party to make the payment of full insured amount i.e. Rs.45,000/- to him immediately in terms of insurance policy alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of theft of the vehicle till actual realization. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides the amount in question on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party alongwith Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Motor cycle make Splendor (black colour) bearing registration No.PB-06-N-6461 through Canteen Stores Department which was fully insured with the opposite party. His son namely Raj Kiran who is doing work of Photostat and working on a shop named and style as Mall Photo State Courts Road, Gurdaspur used to bring the motorcycle for coming to the abovementioned shop. As usual, on 15.08.2014, his son came to the shop and parked the motorcycle near the shop after locking the same. Original R.C. and Insurance Policy were also in the dickey of the abovesaid motor cycle. Thereafter his son kept on working in his shop. After some time when his son came out from his shop, he saw that the motorcycle was missing and someone has stolen the same. He immediately called his sons and searched for the vehicle. He and his father continuously searched the motor cycle, but no information regarding the same was received. Matter was reported to the police of P.S.City Gurdaspur and the police registered criminal case vide U/s 379 IPC FIR No.48 dated 1.4.2014 U/s 379 IPC against unknown persons on the statement of his son but till today, his bike has not been recovered by the policy. He also informed the opposite party regarding the theft of the vehicle and handed over keys of the motorcycle to the opposite party. He lodged claim with the opposite party and also supplied all the requisite documents as demanded by the opposite party from time to time but the opposite party continue to put the matter with one or the other excuse. A period of more than two years has been elapsed from the date of theft but the opposite party instead of making the payment of the insured amount always put the matter with lame excuses and ultimately a week back the opposite party refused to make payment of the insured amount and also refused to give anything in writing. Non releasing of his legal payment by the opposite party official amounts to clear cut deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

3. Upon notice, the opposite party insurer appeared through their counsel and filed their written version taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous; no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant against the opposite party to file the present complaint and the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable being time barred. As per complaint the alleged vehicle was stolen on 15.08.2014 but this complaint was filed on 12.09.2016 after more than two years of alleged theft. So, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable being time barred. On merits, it was submitted that vehicle No.PB-06-N-6461 Hero Honda Splendor Model 2011 was insured with opposite party vide policy no.233890/31/2014/2723 for the period of 15.11.2013 to 14.11.2014. On 11.9.2014 the complainant intimated the opposite party regarding theft of abovesaid vehicle. The complainant lodged police report regarding theft of abovesaid vehicle on 6.9.2016 through his son Raj Kiran. Thereafter the opposite party deputed Sodhi Investigators & Detectives Agency Gurdaspur to investigate the matter who submitted his report on 27.04.2015. Thereafter the opposite party issued a registered letter on 12.10.2016 to the complainant asking him to explain the cause of late intimation of theft to the opposite party and police, but the complainant did not reply the same. The complainant filed abovesaid complaint on 12.09.2016 before explaining the quarry of opposite party. So the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as the complainant has filed this complaint against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. There is delay of more than one month in respect to intimation to the opposite party and police on the part of the complainant as intimation of theft was to be given to the insurer within 48 hours of the theft. So the complainant has breached the terms and condition of the insurance policy by not intimating the opposite party within 48 hours of the alleged theft. Since the complainant was bound to be required to give immediate intimation of the loss to the insurer, as well as to the police, the insurer, on account of the said breach, stood relieved of its obligation to reimburse complainant. All other allegations/averments as made out in the complaint and specifically the prayer clause have been vehemently denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed

4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CI, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C2 to Ex C8 and closed the evidence.

5. On the other hand, the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Karam Singh S.D.M. Oriental Insurance Company Ex.OP1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence.

6. We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for that ignored to be produced) to support/prove their respective ‘claims’ as pleaded by the present litigants in the light of the arguments as put forth by their learned counsels, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the insured Motorcycle in question was allegedly stolen on 15.08.2014 (Affidavit Ex.C1) and thus his related statement of Theft & FIR # 48/2014 at the PS Gurdaspur on 06.09.2014 shall not be termed as ‘delayed’ intimation since delay, even if any, had not been at his end as he (as per his statement Ex.C2 and the deposed affidavit Ex.C3) had reported/ intimated the Police as well as the OP insurers of the theft incident on the day of its occurrence, itself.

7. We further find that the delay in recording/filing (Ex.C5 & Ex.C6) of the related FIR # 48 (Ex.OP4) on 06.09.2014 by the police and the delay in deputing (Ex.OP3) the Investigator by the OP Insurers on 18.03.2015 (on claim intimation format of 11.09.2014) had been at their own respective ends; whereas the necessary theft information/intimation etc stood provided much earlier as per the records of the present proceedings.

8. Thus, we find that the impugned repudiation (Ex.OP6) of the instant insurance claim at the hands of the OP insurers certainly infringes the consumer rights of the complainant all the more so at the face of their own deputed investigator’s report (Ex.OP5) determining the same (insurance claim) to be genuine. Presently, we find that the OP insurers have not been able to justify the impugned ‘claim-repudiation’ and did not even attempt to settle the ‘claim’ as of ‘now’ during the ‘pendency’ of the present complaint to show/exhibit its bonafide intentions but it chose otherwise and thus we hold it guilty of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practices’ etc.

9. In the light of the all above, we partly accept the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Insurers to pay the IDV of the insured Motorcycle (under the related Policy) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders along with Rs.3,000/- as compensation besides Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation, otherwise the aggregate award amount shall attract interest @9% PA from the date of orders till actually paid.

10. Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

(Naveen Puri)

President.

ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)

August 09, 2017 Member.

*MK*