Complainant Ajay Verma has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P. Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to pay the IDV value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.30,000/-. Complainant also claimed Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.20,000/- for the deficiency in services of the opposite party including Rs.20,000/- as a cost of litigation, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he was owner of 'Honda Activa' bearing registration No.PB-06AB-0502. Complainant got his vehicle insured from the opposite party with policy No.1111003117P102225436 which was valid w.e.f. 08.05.2017 to 07.05.2018. This vehicle was stolen on 02.06.107 when the same was parked outside Akas Institute, Chandigarh. The intimation regarding this was given to Police Station South Sector 34, Chandigarh. Police told that they will enquire the matter. After making the enquiry policy registered the F.I.R. No.216 dated 29.06.2017 at P.S. South Sector 34, Chandigarh. Copy of F.I.R. is attached herewith as Ex.C1 and untraceable report as Ex.C2. The documents of the vehicle were also lost at the time theft of vehicle including insurance policy. Complainant approached the United India Insurance Company Regional Office Pathankot and intimation regarding this fact was given to them on 03.06.2017. The company official told the complainant that they will trace the policy and will intimate the claim to the head office. On 09.06.2017 the company's employee gave the copy of policy to the complainant and complainant completed the formalities and provided all the documents to the opposite party. Company failed to settle the claim and sent one letter on 08.08.2019 alleging that there is delay in intimation to the company and in lodging the F.I.R. The letter was duly replied by the complainant that the matter was reported to the police on 02.06.2017 and after enquiry police registered the F.I.R. on 29.06.2017 and complainant is not at fault on this ground. Copy of the letter dated 08.08.2019 is placed as Ex.C3 and reply to the same as Ex.C4. Thereafter, on 17.02.2020 company repudiated the claim on the ground of delay in lodging the F.I.R. and delay of 12 days in intimation to the company. While in their letter dated 17.02.2020 they mentioned that the intimation letter was dated 09.06.2017 for the theft that took place on 02.06.2017. At most the delay is only 7 days and not 12 days as per their repudiation letter dated 17.02.2020 Ex.C5 which is supported by the affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A. Opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of delay of mere 7 days due to which complainant suffered physical and mental harassment and there is deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party, hence this complaint.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party who appeared through their counsel and filed written reply by taking the preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party, that the claim was intimated on 09.06.2017 and received in the office on 14.06.201 and the alleged occurrence took place on 02.06.2017 and F.I.R. was lodged on 29.06.2017 and as such there delay of 27 days in lodging of F.I.R. and claim intimation delay of 12 days. As per terms and conditions of the policy in question the insured shall given immediate notice to the police and cooperate to the company in securing the conviction of the offender. The letter dated 08.08.2019 was sent to the complainant with the request to submit an evidence regarding immediate intimation to the police or the insurer. The claim was made no 'No Claim' vide letter dated 17.02.2020 placed as Ex.OP-1 and also letter dated 08.08.2019 as Ex.OP-2. Policy is placed as Ex.OP-3 and intimation given to office as Ex.OP-4. Affidavit of Divisional Manager as Ex.OP-1/A. On merits it is stated that letter dated 17.02.2020 is legal and valid. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
4. The complainant had got his vehicle 'Honda Activa' bearing registration No.PB-06AB-0502 insured vide policy No. 1111003117P102225436 from the United India Insurance Company, opposite party in the present case which was valid for the period from 08.05.2017 to 07.05.2018. That on 02.06.2017 the said vehicle was stolen from outside Akash Institute. Intimation regarding the same was given to the police station Sector 34 Chandigarh and the F.I.R. for the same was lodged at P.S. Sector 34 Chandigarh on 29.06.2017 (Ex.C1). The said claim of the complainant was not settled by the opposite party even though complainant had completed all the necessary documentation on 09.06.2017 and submitted to the Company. Opposite party had raised a querry vide letter dated 08.08.2019 which was replied by the complainant. On 17.06.2020 opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant after a gap of over 31 months wherein opposite party stated a delay of 7 days in intimation to the company regarding the loss for the repudiation of the claim. On his part complainant has stated that the intimation to the police was lodged on 03.06.2017 and the F.I.R. was registered by the police on 29.062017 after the enquiry. Complainant has also submitted the non-traceable report No.799-5A (P.S.34) dated 28.07.2018 issued by P.S. 34 Chandigarh.
5. From the facts placed above it is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. A mere delay of 12 days to the insurer as claimed by opposite party cannot be the ground for repudiation of the claim which otherwise is the genuine claim. Also from the above said facts it is clear that the actual delay of intimation to opposite party was only 7 days. While on the contrary opposite party on its part repudiated the claim after lapse of over 31 months.
6. So, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the IDV of the vehicle in question alongwith 6% P.A. interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Opposite party is further directed to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- on account mental harassment and an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within a period 45 days.
7. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (R.S.Sukhija)
SEPT. 16, 2022. Member.
YP.
