Complainant M/s.S.K.Brothers through Sh.Joginder Pal son of Sh.Ram Dhan its Proprietor through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay Rs.65,000/- as compensation detailed as Rs.30,000/- as claim of the vehicle and Rs.20,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses, with interest @ 12% per annum upto realization to him.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is sole proprietorship firm M/s.S.K.Brothers and Sh.Joginder Pal son of Sh.Ram Dhan, is its Proprietor. The firm is doing the business of Cloth Merchant in the name and style of M/s.S.K.Brothers. He is owner of the vehicle Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing Regd. NoPB-18-T-7700, Engine No.BHG-05949 and this vehicle was purchased by him for its domestic needs. This vehicle was used to be driven by Sh.Vipul Aggarwal son of Late Sh.Pardeep Kumar, real grandson of Sh.Joginder Pal, who is holding a valid driving license to ply the vehicle in question. He has got the vehicle in question insured through the opposite party vide policy No.2003023115P115230493/1 dated 18.03.2016 for Rs.30,000/- valid upto 10.03.2017 and as such he is consumer of the opposite party. On 25.07.2016, the said motorcycle has been stolen from the outside of his house and the relevant papers were also with the vehicle i.e. Registration Certificate etc. On his asking Sh.Vipul Aggarwal informed the police of PS City Batala on the same day and F.I.R no.9 dated 15.1.2016 U/s. 379 IPC which has already been registered against the bad elements and the investigation of the motorcycle in question was also involved in the said FIR. The intimation regarding the theft of the motorcycle in question was also given to the opposite party no.2 on 26.07.2016 through courier by Sh.Vipul Aggarwal, grandson of Joginder Pal Proprietor of the firm, but no response was given to the letter dated 26.07.2016 by the opposite parties. Again on 17.10.2016 Sh.Vipul Aggarwal issued a letter to the opposite party no.2. On the telephonic conversation with Vipul Aggarwal of the employee of opposite party Sh.Nanak Singh told Vipul Aggarwal that there is no policy exists in our office in the name of Vipul Aggarwal. After that he issued an urgent regd. Post letter dated 25.10.2016 regarding the theft of motorcycle in question and also requested the opposite party no.2 to process the claim and settle it under rules after proper verification under the law. He purchased the vehicle in question from Unique Motors, Batala for a sum of Rs.43,000/-. After this he had been approaching opposite parties for the claim of the vehicle in question but opposite parties have been putting off the matter on one pretext or other and ultimately vide letter dated 11.11.2016 informed him that the theft claim is not admissible due to the violation of policy conditions of the policy and accordingly his claim has been illegally repudiated vide letter dated 11.11.2016 which is illegal, null and void and he is not bound by the same and opposite parties are fully responsible to pay the claim of the vehicle in question of Rs.30,000/- as he has paid the premium to the opposite parties from his hard-earned money. He has visited the office of opposite party no.2 many times and requested them to pay the amount of claim of the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.30,000/- to him but they refused to make the payment of the claim of the vehicle in question to him. A legal notice dated 25.11.2016 was served upon the opposite parties but of no use. Hence this complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objection that present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that Vipul Aggarwal is neither having any insurance policy in his name nor he is owner of the vehicle, therefore, he has no locus standi to make any correspondence in his name with respect to the vehicle which is not owned and insured in his name. It was further submitted that the motorcycle was stolen from outside of the house of Joginder Pal i.e. proprietor of insured concern, whereas in the letter dated 25.10.2016 it has been stated that motorcycle was stolen from the custody of Vipul Aggarwal. Both the statements are totally contrary to each other and it clearly shows that Vipul Aggarwal has been unnecessarily introduced in the present case because the insured owner himself neither gave any intimation to the police authorities, nor gave any intimation in writing to the opposite party. Hence any act on the part of Vipul Aggarwal has no value as for as present claim is concerned. It is however, stated that for the first time the actual owner/insured M/s.S.K.Brothers through its proprietor Joginder Pal gave intimation to the Insurance Company after period of three months from the date of occurrence and as such he has committed breach of basic condition regarding intimation to be given in writing by the insured owner to the nearest office of the insurance company. Under these circumstances, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 11.11.2016 informing that as there is violation of the basic condition and account of said breach, the company has been deprive of its legitimate right to get any enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and to make efforts to recover it has been lost. It was correct that a legal notice dated 25.11.2016 was served upon the insurance company, which has been duly relied in detail. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Vipul Aggarwal Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence.

5. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Palwinder Singh Maan Deputy Manager Ex.OP-1,2/1 along with other documents Ex.OP-1,2/2 to Ex.OP-1,2/5 and closed the evidence.

6. We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for that ignored to be produced) to support/ prove their respective ‘claims’ as pleaded by the present litigants in the light of the arguments as put forth by their learned counsels, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the insured Motorcycle in question was allegedly stolen on 25.07.2016 (Affidavit Ex.C1) and thus his related Statement of Theft (Ex.C7) was clubbed with (Ex.C8) FIR # 09/2016 dated 15.01.2016 at the PS City Batala on 25.07.2016, itself; And, the related intimation (Ex.C9) to the OP Insurers was dispatched on 26.07.2016 as further confirmed (Ex.C10) vide letter dated 17.10.2016 enclosing the courier receipt of 26.07.2016 and the related FIR copy etc.

7. However, we observe that the OP insurers did ignore the complainant’s intimation (Ex.C9) its courier dispatch receipt and its confirmation (Ex.C10) and finally repudiated the insurance claim vide its letter (Ex.C12) of 11.11.2016 on account of delayed intimation of the theft duly citing the decision of the honorable NCDRF, New Delhi in RP # 4749 of 2013; titled Shri Ram General Insurance Co., Jaipur vs. Mahender Jat. Somehow, we find that the OP insurers have failed to prove any evidence of non-receipt of intimation (Ex.C9) by producing its Inward Dak Receipt Register or Courier Records etc whereas the requisite o n p (onus of proof) had shifted upon them upon production of the Courier Receipt by the complainant vide Ex.C9 and Ex.C10. Thus, the impugned repudiation at the end of the OP insurers has been arbitrary and thus invalid by virtue of the applicable statute.

8. Thus, we find that the impugned repudiation (Ex.C12/Ex.OP1,2/4) of the instant insurance claim at the hands of the OP insurers certainly infringes the consumer rights of the complainant lining them up for an adverse statutory award. Presently, we find that the OP insurers have not been able to justify the impugned ‘claim-repudiation’ and did not even attempt to settle the ‘claim’ as of ‘now’ during the ‘pendency’ of the present complaint to show/ exhibit its bonafide intentions but it chose otherwise and thus we hold it guilty of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practices’ etc.

9. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Insurers to pay the full IDV of the insured Motorcycle (under the related Policy) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders along with Rs.3,000/- as compensation besides Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation, otherwise the IDV amount payable shall attract interest @9% PA from the date of filing of the complaint till actually paid.

10. Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

(Naveen Puri)

President.

ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)

December 06, 2017 Member.

*MK*