Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member.

1.  Mrs. Sangita Kumari, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that  complainant being owner of vehicle Santro GS/Hyundai Motors having registration No. PB-02-BH-5462 got the same insured from the opposite party since 2010 and lastly she got it insured for the period from 14.4.2015 to 13.4.2016 on payment of premium of Rs. 4214/-  against Policy No. 2003043115P103735475 with sum assured Rs. 1,93,000/-. Unfortunately the abovesaid vehicle of the complainant was stolen during the midnight of 27/28-11-2015. The complainant immediately reported the matter to the opposite party, who referred the same to Dr. Simerjit Singh Bawa, Investigator. The Investigator vide his letter dated 23.12.2015 demanded some documents. The complainant supplied the documents from Sr.No.2 to 8. However, the document demanded vide Sr.No.1 i.e. certified copy of untraced report was not prepared  by the police authority by that time.  The report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared by the police on 11.4.2016 and produced the same before the court. On receipt of said report, the complainant again approached the opposite party and supplied report of section 173 Cr.P.C. The complainant also requested the opposite party that NCRB has not yet prepared by the police and when the same was received,  she will supply the same  to the opposite party. The said surveyor told that he will consider the claim on the basis of documents and NCRB report should be supplied as and when received from the police. The complainant was astonished to receive a letter dated 3/5/2016/41 from the opposite party rejecting the claim of the complainant on false ground that the intimation of theft was given to their office on 22.12.2015 for the first time and not fulfilled  condition No.1 of the policy. The complainant has received copy of NCRB from police on 11.5.2016 and  on receipt of the same complainant approached the opposite party and requested them to accept the same and reconsider her claim. But the opposite party flatly refused to accept the said NCRB and to reconsider the claim of the complainant. The complainant had immediately  intimated the theft of the vehicle to the opposite party  and surveyor vide his letter dated 23.12.2015 demanded documents which the complainant had supplied to  the surveyor. By rejecting the claim of the complainant, the opposite party has caused mental tension and agony besides financial loss. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-

1. Opposite party be directed to reconsider the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,93,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.
2. Opposite party be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith adequate litigation expenses .

Hence, this complaint.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that  present complaint is not maintainable , since in the light of terms and conditions of the present policy, it was found that the claim is not payable on account of violation of condition No.1 of the Insurance policy in question ; that  the car in question was allegedly stolen on midnight of 27/28 November, 2015 and complainant intimated the opposite party regarding the same on 22.12.2015. That due to delayed intimation of theft, the opposite party was deprived of its legitimate right of starting investigation  and to make an effort to recover the vehicle. Hence, the present claim is not payable; that the parties are governed by the terms & conditions of the policy in question; that as the claim already has been repudiated on merits in the light of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, no consumer dispute survives . On merits  facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
3. In her bid to prove the case complainant  tendered into evidence her duly sworn affidavit  Ex.C-1, copy of FIR Ex.C-2, copy of untraced report Ex.C-3, copy of Insurance policy Ex.C-4, copy of letter dated 23.12.2015 Ex.C-5, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C-6, copy of NCRB report Ex.C-7, copy of Aadhar Card Ex.C-8, copy of RC Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Sandeep Khanna,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.P.S.Mann, Deputy Manager Ex.OP/1, original repudiation letter Ex.OP2, original letter dated 23.12.2015 Ex.OP4, original investigation report Ex.OP5, copy of policy alongwith terms and conditions Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.`
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file .
6. On the basis of the evidence on record, ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the vehicle belonging to the complainant was insured with the opposite party for a consideration of Rs. 1,93,000/- vide insurance cover, copy whereof is Ex.C-4 on record. It is also an admitted fact that the insured vehicle belonging to the complainant was stolen on the midnight of 27/28.11.2015 and rapat No. 165 dated 28.11.2015 was lodged by the complainant with P.S. B-Division, Amritsar, copy of the report accounts for Ex.C-2 on record. It is further the case of the complainant submitted claim case for payment of the loss caused to the vehicle of the complainant with the opposite party . The opposite party deputed Dr. Simerjit Singh Bawa, Investigator , who vide letter dated 23.12.2015 demanded certain documents which were duly supplied to the said investigator from  Sr. No.2 to 8.  However, document demanded vide Sr.No. 1  i.e. NCRB report was supplied to the Investigator on 11.5.2016. opposite party instead of making the loss good to the complainant rejected the claim vide letter dated 3/5/2016/41 on the ground that intimation of theft was given to their office on 22.12.2015 and also did not fulfill condition No.1 of the policy.   As the complainant has fulfilled all the requirements as demanded by the opposite party, as such the complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed for  and the complaint may accordingly be allowed with cost.
7. However, on the other hand, ld.counsel for the opposite party has vehemently contended that the car in question was allegedly stolen  on the midnight of 27/28-11-2015,  but the intimation regarding the same was sent to the opposite party on 22.12.2015. As such due to delayed intimation of theft, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as demanded vide instant complaint. However, despite delayed intimation, the claim had to be decided on merits and therefore, the opposite party immediately appointed the surveyor, who approached the complainant for proper investigator without any delay.  Since the claim has been decided genuinely  and repudiated on merits in the light of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore the question of reconsidering the same never arose.

8.       However, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident  that the vehicle in question was stolen on the midnight of 27/28-11-2015 and the complainant reported the matter with the police of P.S. “B” division, Amritsar on 28.11.2015 vide FIR No. 165 dated 28.11.2015, copy of FIR accounts for Ex.C-2 on record. The complainant also fulfilled all the requirements i.e. certified copy of untraced report as demanded vide letter dated 23.12.2015. However, the  NCRB report was supplied to the Investigator on 11.5.2016, copy of NCRB report accounts for Ex.C-7. But the opposite party repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant vide letter dated 3.5.2016, copy of the same is Ex.OP2 on record, on the ground that  the complainant  intimated the opposite party regarding the theft of vehicle only on 22.12.2015  and due to delayed intimation of theft, the opposite party was deprived of its legitimate right of starting investigations and to make an effort to recover the vehicle. But on the other hand the copy of the FIR Ex.C-7 fully proves the contention of the complainant that the complainant has reported the matter with the police of P.S. “B” Division, Amritsar on the same day of occurrence i.e. 28.11.2015 and as such the plea of the opposite party that they were deprived of its legitimate right of starting investigation  and to make an effort to recover the vehicle , is not tenable as the police made every efforts to trace out the vehicle and issued untraced certificate as well as NCRB report to the complainant ,which the complainant handed over to the surveyor.

9.       Consequently , we have come to the conclusion that complainant has proved her case and supplied all the documents as required by the opposite party. As such opposite party is directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum                                

Dated : 11.1.2017                                               

/R/