BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:431 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 24.09.2013.
Date of Decision:09.06.2016
Mohan Lal son of Shri Hardwari Lal, Hari Nagar, Rohtak Road, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- United India Insurance Company Limited, through its General Manager, 24, Whites Roads, Chenai-600014.
- Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, 18-Sirsa Road, Hisar-125001.
- Branch Manager, Nehru Market, 5, Circular Road, Bhiwani-125022.
…...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 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-19F-0740 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party vide cover note no. 945489 policy no. -110485/31/11/01/00004397 which was valid from 20.10.2011 to 19.10.2012. The complainant alleged that on 17.09.2012 at about 7:30 p.m. above said vehicle was stolen and FIR No. 209 dated 21.09.2012 was registered in P.S. City Charkhi Dadri. It is alleged that he informed the Ops regarding the theft. 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 23.07.2013 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 Branch Office of OP no. 1 at Hansi had sent letter dated 01.03.2013 followed by reminders dated 03.12.2012 and 10.12.2012 to fulfil requirements and to clarify why complainant did not lodge the FIR just after the theft and why there was delay of four days in lodging the same and also to clarify giving information to the Ops late by four days with regard to alleged theft of the vehicle. 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 Exhibit CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-11.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite parties placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-17 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 complainant immediately after the theft of his motor cycle informed the police and the OP. The police after making preliminary investigation lodged the FIR No. 209 dated 21.09.2012. He submitted that the complainant has completed all the necessary formalities and the OP has failed to pay the claim to the complainant. The OP has illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on false facts.
7. Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that there is delay of 4 days in lodging the FIR and intimation to the company. The claim has been rightly repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 01.03.2013 Annexure R-1. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Mahender Jat [2015] CJ 181.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. Admittedly, an FIR No. 209 dated 21.09.2012 has been lodged regarding the theft of the motor cycle by the complainant with the concerned police station. As per the contention of the complainant there is delay of 4 days in lodging the FIR and intimation to the company. For the delay of 4 days, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant immediately approached the concerned police station in lodging the FIR but the police lodged the FIR after making preliminary investigation and the complainant also immediately informed the insurance company telephonically. Indisputably, the motor cycle in question has been stolen during the subsistence of insurance cover. The motor cycle in question was comprehensively insured by the OP and under the terms and conditions of the policy the OP is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the loss caused to the complainant. The OP has not provided any material on record that there is intentional delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the FIR and the company has suffered any irreparable loss. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the Ops are liable to pay the claim for the theft of the motor cycle to the complainant. We direct the Ops to pay Rs. 31,500/- the insured amount of the vehicle without interest to the complainant 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 untrace report and letter of subrogation to the OP 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: 09.06.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member.
