BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

                                                           Complaint No.:262 of 2017.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 09.10.2017.

                                                           Date of Decision: 06.09.2018.

Pal Singh son of Ram Chander, resident of Lajpat Nagar, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, DSS 2, Town Centre, Backside Bus Stand, Urban Estate, Bhattu Mandi, District Fatehabad.

                                                                             …Opposite Party.

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Before:                Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                            Sh. M.K. Khurana, Member.

Present:                Sh. Ramanand, counsel for the complainant.

Sh. N.D. Mittal, counsel for the opposite party.

ORDER:

                             The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party with the averments that he got his motor cycle bearing RC No. HR-2G-8215 insured with the OP and a payment of Rs. 945/- as premium was made by him to the OP and as such he is consumer of the OP.  It is further submitted that the policy was valid from 21.1.2015 to 20.1.2016 and at the time of issuance of the policy the complainant was assured that the motor cycle is fully insured against theft.

2.                          It is further submitted that on 7.11.2015 at about 12.00 noon the complainant parked the insured vehicle on the back side of old Radha Sowami Satsang Bhawan and thereafter went to his house.  After half an hour when the complainant came back from his house, he found the motor cycle missing from the place where it was parked.  Regarding theft of the motor cycle the complainant submitted a complaint in the city Police Station, Fatehabad and an FIR no. 689 dated 8.11.2015 under Section 379 of IPC was registered.  Thereafter, the complainant also intimated the occurrence of theft in the office of the OP situated on the back side of the grain market, Fatehabad and a copy of FIR no. 689 of 2015 was also attached with the application.  Thereafter, the complainant was assured by the OP that within a few days payment of insurance amount will made to him.  However, till date no amount of insurance has been paid by the OP to the complainant and now the OP has flatly refused to make any payment of the insurance claim.

3.                          The complainant also issued a legal notice to the OP through his counsel but all in vain.  The abovesaid act on the part of OP amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant.  The complainant has further prayed that the OP may be directed for making a payment of Rs. 30,000/- as insurance claim.  The complainant has also sought an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation from the OPs.  Hence, the present complaint. 

4.                          On being served the OP appeared and filed written statement, wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, locus standi, concealment of true and correct facts and cause of action etc. have been raised.

5.                          In reply on merits, it is submitted that as a matter of fact the theft of the vehicle in question had occurred on 7.11.2015, but the intimation of the theft was received by the OPs on 13.11.2015.  As per terms and conditions of the policy the complainant was bound to give written intimation of the theft to the insurer/OP immediately.  However, after getting the intimation of theft the matter was got investigated by the OP.  The investigator submitted his investigation report dated 8.9.2016 and provided certified copy of untraced report dated 20.7.2016.  After getting the investigation report the OP demanded duplicate keys, subrogation letter, consent letter and bank account details from the complainant a number of times verbally as well as in writing and in ‘this regard letters dated 18.9.2016, 14.10.2016 and 27.12.2016 were also issued to the complainant.  However, the complainant did not furnish any information in response to the abovesaid letters.  Therefore, the company was left with no alternative except to close the claim on 23.1.2017.  It is further submitted that in view of the position as explained above there is no deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merits. 

6.                          The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A along-with documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence of the complainant.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sachin Manchanda Branch Manager as Exhibit RW1/A and the documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence.

7.                          We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record of the present case. It is not disputed that insurance of the motor cycle in question of the complainant was issued by the OP and the same was valid from 21.1.2015 to 20.1.2016.  It is also not disputed that an amount of Rs. 945/- as premium was paid by the complainant to the OP.  From perusal of Annexure C-1, it is also evident that an FIR no. 689 of 2015 was recorded in Police Station City, Fatehabad regarding theft of the insured vehicle on 7.11.2015 i.e. during the subsistence of the insurance policy.  From the document Annexure C-2, it is also evident that an untraceable report in the abovesaid FIR regarding theft of the insured vehicle was submitted by the police and the same was accepted vide order dated 6.7.2016 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.  The insurance claim of the complainant in the present case has been repudiated by the OP mainly on the ground that theft of the insured vehicle was committed on 7.11.2015 whereas the intimation regarding the theft was received by the insurance claim on 13.11.2015 i.e. after a lapse of 6 days, whereas as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was bound to give intimation regarding the theft of the insured vehicle immediately.  We are of the considered opinion that the abovesaid ground taken by OP for repudiating the insurance claim of the complainant is not sustainable in the eyes of law.  It is a settled proposition of law that a genuine insurance claim cannot be completely denied only on account of technical ground of delay.

8.                          Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled for receiving the insurance claim on non-standard basis.  Therefore, the OP is directed for making a payment of 75% of IDV of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant.  The OP is further directed for making a payment of Rs. 5100/- as compensation and litigation charges to the complainant. If the said vehicle is traced out at any stage then it will become the property of the OP. The present order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the present order, otherwise the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the default period. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                                   Dated:06.09.2018

                                                                   (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                  President                                (M.K.Khurana)                                            Distt. Consumer Dispute

Member                                      Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.