BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:103 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 28.03.2013.
Date of Decision:26.10.2015
Vinod Kumar son of Shri Sher Singh, resident of Ghikara Road, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office at 53-B, Gandhi Market, G.T. Road, Hansi, District Hisar.
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. & Head Office, 24, Whites Road Chennai through its M.D.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Sanjay Parmar, 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 Hero Honda C.D. DLX Motorcycle, model 2010 vehicle bearing registration No. HR-19D-9657 and the same was insured with the Opposite Party vide cover note no. 952282 which was valid from 09.12.2011 to 08.12.2012. The complainant alleged that on 28.02.2012 above said vehicle was stolen and FIR No. 35 dated 29.02.2012 was registered in P.S. City Charkhi Dadri. The complainant alleged that the officials of the OP told to the complainant that your claim would be settled after coming of final un-trace report and in the end un-trace report was filed by the police in the court. The complainant further alleged that after completion of all the formalities he visited the office of the OP no. 1 many times but OP no. 1 did not take any heed on the request of the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice through registered pot on 02.11.2012 but Ops was not replied the same. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony 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 the complainant has sent intimation regarding the alleged theft to the OP no. 1 on 31.03.2012 and after receiving the intimation, the matter was discussed by OP no. 1 with its senior officers. It is submitted that the complainant failed to intimate the OP no. 1 regarding the alleged theft within time i.e. just after the incident, the claim was not admittable. It is denied that the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- 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 complainant has placed on record affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-10. Written arguments on behalf of counsel for complainant filed.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5 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 in question was stolen on 28.02.2012 and FIR no. 35 dated 29.09.2012 was lodged with the concerned police station by the complainant. The complainant also intimated the opposite parties and submitted the claim to the opposite parties. He further submitted that the complainant also got the untrace report dated 28.08.2012, the copy of which is Annexure C-6.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that there is delay of 33 days in the intimation to the Insurance Company regarding the theft of the motor cycle by the complainant. Therefore, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties for the delayed intimation of the theft. The repudiation letter dated 26.04.2012 is Annexure R-3.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The Ops have produced the copy of intimation of loss Annexure R-2, on which in the column of date it has been mentioned as 12.03.2012. The Ops did not get investigated the claim of the complainant, as is apparent from the notings on Annexure R-2 and the copy of letter dated 26.04.2012 Annexure R-3. The Ops have not entertained the claim of the complainant merely on the ground of late intimation to the Ops. Admittedly, there is no delay in lodging the FIR. The complainant has also procured the untrace report/final report dated 28.08.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-6. The motor cycle in question has been stolen during the period of insurance cover as is proved from the FIR and untrace report. The claim of the complainant cannot be denied merely on the ground of late intimation to the company. Keeping in view the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and the Ops are directed to pay I.D.V. of the motor cycle of Rs. 32,000/- to the complainant. The complainant is directed to submit the necessary documents to the Ops and the Ops are directed to pay the claim of the complainant within 30 days from the date of submission of the documents. 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: 26.10.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
