Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                                                                                Complaint No. : 353.

                                                                             Instituted on     : 22.06.2021.

                                                                             Decided on       : 31.05.2022.

Ashok Kumar age 46 years son of Shri Hari Ram, resident of village Saimpal Tehsil Kalanaur Distt. Rohtak.

                                                                             .......................Complainant.

                                                Vs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional office Jawahar Market, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Manager.

                                                                             ……….Opposite party.

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

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Prikshit Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Puneet Chahal, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                                ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of the vehicle-Motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-12T-3808 SPL Hero, which was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,  vide policy no.261200/31/2019/2111 for the period 29.10.2018 to 28.10.2019 for the IDV Rs.17000/-  as per insurance policy. The aforesaid vehicle of the complainant was got stolen on 31.07.2019. Complainant intimated the police concerned and motorcycle was not traced out. Then FIR No.250 dated 01.08.2019 was got registered.  Complainant duly intimated the official of the opposite party verbally as well as in writing about the theft of aforesaid vehicle and also submitted all the required documents and completed all the formalities as required by the respondent. Complainant received untraced report of aforesaid motorcycle on 24.12.2020 from the court of Illaqua Magistrate, Rohtak and submitted the copy of the same in the office of respondent. The respondent issued letters dated 24.02.2020, 05.01.2021 to the complainant requiring therein arbitrary documents. Complainant submitted the required documents in the office of respondent but despite repeated requests of the complainant, the claim amount  has not been disbursed to the complainant. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the IDV of Rs.17000/- of the alleged stolen vehicle alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.  

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that answering opposite party had appointed an investigator to investigate the spot/alleged theft/loss. The respondent insurance company sent letters dated 24.02.2020, 10.07.2020 and 05.01.2021 for providing the documents i.e. original vehicle report u/s 173 of Cr.p.c. duly approved by Magistrate, copy of letter addressed to concerned RTO for information of theft of vehicle duly received by them. Copy of letter addressed to SHO giving reference of FIR number duly received by the police station requesting that in case of recovery of vehicle/missing items Oriental insurance company may be informed, key both(original)  and complainant was requested to comply with the aforesaid requirements within 7 days of the issue of these letters, but the complainant did not submit and clarify all requirements. The complainant submitted both keys but both the keys are different and he did not submit the bill of replace of lock set of the vehicle. This is violation of policy condition  and as such the respondent is not liable to pay the claim and answering respondent repudiated the claim on genuine ground. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed his evidence on dated 24.02.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on dated 04.04.2022.

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

5.                In the present case insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed but the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that they have served letters dated 24.02.2020, 10.07.2020 and 05.01.2021 for providing the documents but the complainant did not submit and clarify all requirements. As such his claim was repudiated by the opposite party. To prove the same opposite party has placed on record copy of letters Ex.R2 to Ex.R4, whereby opposite party has sought some documents e.g. Original copy of FIR, Original vehicle report u/s 173Cr.P.C, copy of letter addressed to R.T.O. informing of theft of vehicle giving reference of FIR, copy of letter addressed to SHO giving reference of FIR, both original keys. On the other hand, complainant vide its letter Ex.C11 dated 25.01.2021(which was duly received by the opposite party vide diary/receipt no. 541/25.01.2021) has submitted that he is submitting the required documents i.e. copy of untraced report issued by the Court , copy of report of proceeding u/s 173 Cr.PC., copy of letter addressed to SDM, Rohtak dated 30.08.2019 and copy of application dated 31.07.2019 given to SHO, P.S. Arya Nagar, Rohtak. Meaning thereby all the required and requisite documents have been submitted by the complainant to the opposite party and the opposite party has received the same under proper receipt. Complainant has already submitted before the Registration Authority regarding non transfer of vehicle in the name of any other person. But despite all these facts, claim amount has not been given to the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount i.e. IDV of the vehicle to the complainant.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.17000/-(Rupees seventeen thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.22.06.2021 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. All the other formalities regarding cancellation of R.C. etc. have already been completed by the complainant.

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

31.05.2022.                                               

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

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

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

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member

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

                                                          Shyam Lal, Member