Haryana

Sonipat

CC/85/2015

OM PARKASH S/O HARI CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. CHAHAL

17 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.85 of 2015

Instituted on: 13.03.2015                 

Date of order: 17.09.2015

 

Om Parkash son of Hari Chand, resident of H.No.352/1, Main Bazaar Gohana, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.           Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.  Branch Rohtak road, Gohana through its Branch Manager.

                                      …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh.BS Chahal, Advocate for complainant.

          Sh.Surender 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 himself to be the registered owner of  Bolero Pick up no.HR-67-4048 which was insured with the respondent for the period 8.5.2013 to 7.5.2014. But unfortunately the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person on 26.5.2013.  FIR was lodged with the concerned police station.  The complainant informed the respondent regarding the theft of his vehicle and also completed all the required formalities, but on 3.2.2014 the respondent issued a letter to the complainant thereby demanding fitness certificate of the said vehicle.  The same was also submitted by the complainant with the respondent, but till date, the respondent has not paid any amount to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the insured vehicle is a commercial vehicle and it is necessary to get fitness certificate every time and at the time of theft, the vehicle was not having any fitness certificate and due to this, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the insurance company.

3.        We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the insured vehicle is a commercial vehicle and it is necessary to get fitness certificate every time and at the time of theft, the vehicle was not having any fitness certificate and due to this, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the insurance company.

         But the perusal of the case file shows that Ex.C5 is the photo copy of certificate of fitness of vehicle no.HR67-4048. This certificate was issued for the period w.e.f. 11.2.2013 to 10.2.2014.  The theft of the vehicle has taken place on 26.5.2013, meaning thereby on the day of alleged theft of the vehicle, the vehicle was having fitness certificate and in our view, for want of fitness certificate, the respondent has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant.  The vehicle was insured for Rs.2 lacs and the theft of the vehicle has taken place during the validity of the insurance policy. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.two lacs) to the complainant and the complainant is also hereby directed to submit the letter of subrogation, indemnity bond, affidavit and also to get transferred the RC of the vehicle in question in the name of the respondent insurance company.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

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

Member, DCDRF       Member, DCDRF,      President

    SNP                SNP              DCDRF SNP.

ANNOUNCED 17.09.2015