BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:302 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 16.05.2013.
Date of Decision:27.12.2016
Jitender son of Sh. Ram Niwas, resident of VPO Dhana Narsan, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- United India Insurance Company Ltd., Zoo Road, Red Cross Bhawan, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
- United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. & Head Office at 24, Whites Road, Chennai through its Manager/M.D.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Present:- Sh. Naveen Kaushik, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.K. Verma, 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-16J-9752 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party no. 1 vide policy no. 1112023110P002313054 which was valid from 22.03.2011 to 21.03.2012. The complainant alleged that on 20.03.2013 above said vehicle was stolen and CC bearing no. 107 dated 31.03.2012 under Section 379 IPC was registered in P.S. Tauru. The complainant alleged that he informed to the OP no. 1 and submitted all the documents for passing of claim of complainant. It is alleged that the concerned police has filed un-trace report of above said FIR in respect of theft of complainant motor cycle in the month of July 2012 and after filing of untraced report complainant submitted final report of police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is alleged that OP no. 1 gave assurance to complainant that their company would pass the claim but till today has not passed the claim. 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.
2. On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that there was delay in lodging the FIR and intimating the OP no. 1 with regard to the alleged loss. It is submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with OP no. 1 w.e.f. 22.03.2011 to 21.03.2012. It is submitted that the official of the OP no. 1 never gave any assurance to the complainant that the claim amount would be paid to him. 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 tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite parties has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the motor cycle in question of the complainant was stolen on 20.03.2013 and an FIR No. 107 dated 31.03.2012 was lodged regarding the theft of motor cycle with the concerned police station. He submitted that the complainant has submitted that the necessary documents to the OPs for the settlement of his claim but the Ops have not paid the claim to the complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that there is delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR and the company was intimated by the complainant on 03.04.2012 after about 13 days of the alleged theft of the motor cycle. The claim file of the complainant was closed as “No Claim” due to the delay in lodging the FIR and intimation to the company regarding the theft of the motor cycle.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The complainant has produced the copy of FIR as Annexure C-1 and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as Annexure C-2 and the insurance policy Annexure C-4 vide which the motor cycle in question was insured for a sum of Rs. 62,000/-. The theft of the motor cycle in question has not been disputed by the Ops. The untrace report has also been produced by the complainant. No letter has been issued by the Ops in response to the claim of the complainant to the complainant. The vehicle in question was comprehensively insured by the Ops. The claim of the complainant ought to be settled on non standard basis because the factum of the motor cycle being stolen is admitted fact. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay the 70 per cent of the IDV of the motor cycle in question to the complainant as full and final settlement of his claim. The Ops are directed to comply with this order within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise thereafter the Ops shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum on the award amount till the date of payment. 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: 27.12.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member.
