BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:342 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 20.06.2013.
Date of Decision:16.06.2016
Ravinder Phogat son of Shri Om Parkash Phogat, resident of House No. 170, Ward No. 15, Rohtak Chowk, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani, Haryana.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director/Chairman, Oriental House, Post Box No. 7038, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
- Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office-Charkhi Dadri.
...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Manjeet Chahar, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri M.L. Sardana, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is owner of a motor cycle vehicle bearing registration No. HR-19C-6614 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party vide cover note no. 261204/31/2012/51 issue date 05.04.2011. The complainant alleged that on 14.02.2012 above said vehicle was stolen and FIR No. 71 dated 26.02.2012 was registered in P.S. Sadar Charkhi Dadri. It is alleged that he informed the Ops regarding the theft. It is alleged that soon after receiving untraceable/final report dated 25.10.2009 from the police, the complainant properly applied for the claim of the vehicle with the Ops alongwith all relevant documents. The complainant alleged that after completion of all the formalities he visited the office of the Ops many times but they did not take any heed on the request of the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice on 11.10.2012 but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that the complaint is not disputed to the extent that the insurance company deputed Shri Maj. Mehar Singh (Rtd.) Surveor and Investigator for investigations into the matter of theft of motor cycle of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant himself moved the application dated 11.06.2012 in reply to letter dated 08.06.2012 seeking condonation of delay wherein he clearly admitted that he could not inform the insurance company for want of knowledge. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has placed on record documents Annexure 1 to Annexure 12 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite parties placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-11 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the motor cycle of the complainant was stolen on 14.02.2012 at 11.30 p.m. He submitted that the complainant immediately contacted the police on telephone no. 100 and also given the written complaint to the police on the next day. But the concerned police station registered the FIR after preliminary investigation on 26.02.2012. The complainant also informed the insurance company about the theft of his motor cycle.
7. Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that there is delay of 12 days in lodging the FIR by the complainant regarding the theft of his motor cycle with the concerned police station and there is delay of about 13 days in intimation to the company. He submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated and the complainant has been duly informed vide letter dated 27.06.2012 Annexure R-8. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi:
I ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Pawan Kumar III (2014) CPJ 162.
II Satish Kumar Versus Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd. & Ors. III (2015) CPJ 669.
8. Admittedly, the motor cycle in question of the complainant was stolen on 14.02.2012 and the FIR No. 71 dated 26.02.2012 Annexure 11 was lodged with the concerned police station after delay of 12 days. The complainant has tried to justify in registering of the FIR. As per the contention of the complainant he immediately informed the police on telephone no. 100. The motor cycle in question has been stolen during the subsistence of the comprehensive insurance cover. The untrace report dated 07.07.2012 Annexure 12 has also been produced by the complainant. The factum of theft of the motor cycle has not been denied by the OPs. The company has not produced on record any material that there is intentional delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR and intimating the company and as such the OPs have suffered irreparable loss. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the claim of the complainant can be settled on non-standard basis. We hold that the Ops are liable to indemnify the complainant to the extent of 15 per cent of the amount insured. In view of our discussion, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay 75 per cent of the insured amount of Rs. 32,000/- i.e. Rs. 24,000/- and for the delay in lodging the FIR and intimation to the company no interest is being allowed to the complainant though the motor cycle in question has been stolen in February 2012. We direct the Ops to pay Rs. 24,000/- to the complainant without interest within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the Ops shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum after the stipulated period till the date of payment. The complainant is directed to furnish the letter of subrogation to the OPs for the payment of the awarded amount, within 15 days from the date of this order. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 16.06.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member.
