DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NUH
Consumer Complaint No. 08 of 2018
Date of Institution: 01.06.2018
Date of Decision : 30.08.2019
Momin Khan sonof Shri Sarfuddin, R/o Mundheta Tehsil Punhana District Nuh.
.. Complainant.
Versus
Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., JMD, Regent Arcade Mall, Second floor, Below Celebrity Jim, M.G. Road, Gurgaon through its Branch Manager.
..Respondent.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: Rajbir Singh Dahiya : PRESIDENT
Urmil Beniwal : MEMBER
PRESENT: Mr. Sajid Salamba, Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Sandeep Mittal, counsel for the respondent.
ORDER:
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is registered owner of motor cycle bearing No. HR-28E/3250 Model-2013, Engine No. HA10ELD9H05858, chasis No. MBLHA10ASD9H05047 and it was insured w.e.f 30.10.2014 to 29.10.2015 with the respondent. That the brother of the complainant namely Aarif came to Nuh on the above noted motor cycle on dated 25.06.2015 and he was going to Apna Hotel for eating food and where the motor cycle of the applicant was stolen. Aarif dialed 100 number on same day. The incident was occurred at 6:00 PM. The complainant/applicant searched the same here and there but the same was not found. Then the complainant informed to P.S. Nuh lodged FIR No. 416 dated 27.6.2015 u/s 379 IPC.
That on very same day the complainant informed to the respondent company through mobile phone about the said incident/theft and after that the applicant completed all the formalities of the documents required by the respondent after that claim no. C0872223 was issued to the applicant. Surveyor Gaurav Tanwar mobile no. 9810320989 came at the spot and inquired the matter and after that applicant many times visited the office of respondent and requested to pass claim but the respondent lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. That local police tried their level best to find out the culprits but all in vain. The local police filed untraced report in Court of Illaqua Magistrate. That in the last on dated 29.05.2018 applicant visited the office of respondent at Gurgaon and also requested to give the claim but the respondent finally refused to accept the claim of the applicant. Hence, this complaint. The complainant has prayed that the respondent may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 32000/- alongwith cost and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of steal of vehicle in question mentioned in para no. 1 of the application till realization of amount to the applicant.
2. After registration and admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the respondent, the respondent appeared and filed written statement stating there in that there is deficiency in service on the part of the complainant, as the fact that is admitted by the complainant that as per the intimation as provided by the complainant, the date of theft of vehicle is 16.4.2015 whereas the complainant intimated the claim to the answering respondent on 8.9.2015 i.e. after a period of 145 days from the date of occurrence. Furthermore, the complainant lodged FIR on 27.6.2015 i.e. after a period of 72 days and hence has breached the condition no. 1 of the insurance policy. It is submitted as per the surveyor report and the statement of the complainant, the alleged motorcycle was stolen on 16.4.2015 and not on 25.6.2015 as alleged in this paragraph. It is further submitted tha the present FIR was got registered after a period of 72 days from the alleged date of theft. A false FIR has been got lodged by the complainant in league with the police officials. It is submitted that the said motorcycle of the complainant is stated to be stolen on 16.4.2015 as per his own version and the FIR as alleged is of the date of 27.6.2015. It is further submitted that the complainant had even not intimated about the theft to the answering respondent also within a stipulated period as per the terms and policy and hence the complainant is not entitled for any type of claim as he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant intimated about the theft to the respondent company on 8.9.2015 i.e. after a period of six days from the date of occurrence. It is wrong and denied that the complainant informed the respondent company through mobile phone about the said incident on the very same day. In the end he prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with cost.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant closed the evidence after tendering the affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Annexure-1 to 10.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent closed the evidence after tendering the affidavit Ex. RW1/A.
5. Arguments heard and file perused.
6. The main objection of the opposite party is a statement Annexure-R2. The complainant outrightly did not admit his signature on the alleged statement. The complainant specifically argued that ne neither suffered nor signed the alleged statement Ex. R2. In the seuertin it was incumbent upon the respondent to get the signatures on Ex. R2 companied with those of admitted signatures of the complainant on the complaint, Vakalatnama and his affidavit. This exercise on the part of the opposite party would have bring desired results for them if both the signatures had tallied, which did not happen in this case. So, this document is rejected.
7. As regard the routine objection of delay in lodging the FIR and intimation on to the opposite party are not tenable. In view of the instruction of IRDA. Which is reproduced as under:-.
Whereas clearly laid down that claim should not be rejected on technical grounds. This matter has been thoroughly discussed in a case law decided by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CR no. 5294 of 2016 titled Bharti Axa Vs. Permanent Lak Adalat Camp Court at Palwal & Ors. Whereby Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held that: “The small delay, if any, would not render the case of claimant to be doubtful on any score and the Insurance Company would not be justified to repudiate the claim of the claimant on the that score an as per NIC VS. Sandeep and others decided on 17.12.2016 Hon’ble High Court has held that: “The Court would like to impress upon the IRDs to look into the matter and take appropriate remedial measures, at an early date, so as to ensure that the real object of insurance is achieved and innocent citizens/insured may not keep on suffering. The delay in connection to the insurance company cannot be a ground for repudiation of a claim specifically after the instructions of I.R.D.A to all the Insurance companies vide its circular dated 20.09.2011.
8. Regarding the objection on limitation, the limitation should be count from the date of receipt of repudiation letter by the complainant and not from the date of theft. So, this objection is also negated.
9. In view of the above, the objections of O.P. are negated and the complaint is allowed. We pass an award of Rs. 32,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the filing of the complaint till its realization and Rs. 5000/- litigation and harassment charges. Opposite party is directed to comply the order within 30 days. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the records.
Announced on: 30.08.2019 (Rajbir SINGH Dahiya)
President
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuh.
(Urmil Beniwal)
Member
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuh
