Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, H.P.
Complaint Case No.67/2009
Date of Institution 28-2-2009
Date of Decision 28-12-2009
Sanjeev Kumar son of Sh.Sher Singh resident of village Jakher, Post Office Kalkhar, Sub Tehsil Baldwara, District Mandi, H.P.
…Complainant
Vs
Branch Manager , Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd near Old Bus stand , Mandi, H.P.
…..Opposite party
For the complainant Sh. R.K.Verma , Advocate
For the opposite party Sh. M.C.Sharma , Advocate
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ORDER.
This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of motor cycle N0. HP-28-3294( Bajaj Pulsor -10CC) which was insured with the opposite party with effect from 3-8-2007 to 2-8-2008 .During the currency of the insurance policy i.e. on 3-7-2008 said vehicle was stolen by someone when it was parked adjoining to the house of his uncle Sh. Tej Singh . The complainant came to know about the theft on the next morning i.e. on 4-7-2008 at 8.30 AM. The complainant lodged First Information report No.194 of 2008 on 4-7-2008 at Police Station , Sarkakghat under section 379 IPC. The opposite party was also informed about the accident . The police investigated the case but could not trace out the stolen motor cycle . The complainant stated that he tried his best to locate the motor cycle but of no avail . The complainant averred that he submitted all the documents for finalization of insurance claim but the opposite party had delayed the matter . The opposite party was served with legal notice dated 23-9-2009 but of no avail. The complainant alleged that non settlement of the claim of his motor cycle tentamounts to deficiency in service . With these averments , the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite party to pay full insurance amount of the stolen motor cycle alongwith interest. Apart from this , damages of Rs.10,000/- and cost of proceedings had also been claimed.
2. The opposite party had filed reply wherein it has been pleaded in preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as there has been breach of terms and conditions of the policy vide which the owner has to give the notice to the insurer regarding loss and damages and in the present case no written notice has been given by the complainant of theft , that the complainant has not kept the vehicle in question in safe custody but parked it in the house of other person, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint , that the complaint is wrong , baseless and has been filed in order to harass and humiliate the opposite party and that question of deficiency in service on its part has been denied as the insurer has no opportunity to process the claim and the complaint is pre-mature . On merits , the contents of the complaint have been denied in toto. It has been averred that the complainant had not informed it about the theft and it came to know when it received notice from this Forum and then it appointed investigator to investigate the case and as soon as the report of the investigator is received ,the case would be settled if found genuine . The opposite party had denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant filed rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complaint and controverted the allegations made in the reply .
4. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. From the perusal of the record it is revealed that the motor cycle of the complainant was insured with the opposite party with effect from 3-8-2007 to 2-8-2008 and during the currency of the insurance policy i.e. on 3-7-2008, the motor cycle in question was stolen and in this respect , the complainant has also placed on record copy of first information report No. 194 of 2008 dated 4-7-2008 lodged at Police Station Sarkaghat under section 379 IPC. The complainant has also filed final report submitted by the police under section 173 Cr.P.C. However, the claim of the complainant has not been settled by the opposite party despite information to the opposite party and submission of various documents . The complainant has also placed on record letter dated 25th August 2008 sent to the opposite party for settlement of the insurance claim and the postal receipt has also been attached alongwith letter . However, despite issuance of the letter , the opposite party had failed to settle the claim. In our considered opinion, non settlement of the claim within a reasonable period definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. As discussed earlier the complainant had informed the opposite party about the theft of his motor cycle . The police had also filed final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Therefore ,it was incumbent upon the opposite party to have taken a decision about the settlement of the claim of the complainant and to have the same communicated to him within a reasonable time but no decision in this regard has been taken by the opposite party till date . Therefore, non settlement of the claim within the reasonable period had caused harassment to the complainant for which he has to be adequately compensated.
5 Now the next question which arises for determination by this Forum is that to what amount the complainant is entitled on account of the theft of his motor cycle . As per the certificate cum policy schedule , total sum insured of the vehicle was Rs.56,003/-. The terms and conditions of the policy provides that where the age of the vehicle exceeds six months but does not exceed one year the insured declared value has to be fixed by depreciating 15 % of the amount for the purpose of total loss claim. As per the copy of registration certificate, the motor cycle in question was registered on 10th August 2007. Therefore, at the time of theft of the motor cycle i.e. on 3-7-2008, its age exceeded six months but did not exceed one year. Hence by deducting 15 % of the amount from Rs.56,003/-, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.47600/-.
6 In the light of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.47600/- to the complainant on total loss basis alongwith interest at the rate of 9% PA from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental tension suffered by the complainant at the hands of the opposite party and also to pay Rs.1000/- as cost of complaint.
7 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.
8 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced (Sushil Kukreja) President
28-12-2009
DKM ( Lal Singh ) ( Alkananda ) Members