Order
The complainant has filed this case on 31-01-2014 for his claim of Rs. 153426/- for insured sum declared value along with Rs. 25,000/- for mental harassment and litigation cost.
The case of complainant appears from his complaint petition supported with an affidavit that he has get insured through opposite party no.-2 PIAGB-APEP his new APE-PIAGGIO auto from the agency of opposite party no.-1 Chola- MS general Insurance company. After taking the premium amount Rs. 7112/- the opposite party insurance company issued bearing policy no.- 3368/0526045/000/00 against the vehicle (auto) Reg. no.- BR06PB-2677, Engine No. R2G2168390 chassis no. MBX0000ZFPG544392. The covered period of insurance is from 06-08-2012 to 05-08-2013 .
The complainant has purchased his new PIAGGIO auto which has financed by central bank of India, opposite party no.2 and insured by chola MS General Insurance company as opposite party no.1 During covered insured period his PIAGGIO auto was stolen away from his house dated 09-05-2013 at 3AM. The complainant had informed the police PS-Kanti ( Panapur out post ) on same day dated 09-05-2013 as such Kanti Police lodged PS case no.- 158/2013. The complainant has also informed the said incident to company’s toll free number. The opposite party insurance company chola MS lodged his case as claim no.- 3368038003 and deputed investigator.
The complainant has filed Xerox copy of FIR of Kanti P.S. Case no.- 150/13 u/s 379 C.P.C. Xerox copy of final form no. 357/13 dated 31-08-2013, on above P.S. Case. Xerox of acceptance of final form by court, of S.D.J.M West Muzaffarpur vide order dated 23-11-2013, Xerox copy of insurance paper, Xerox of letter of Chola MS (without prejudice by RPAD). Date not mentioned which are annexure 1 to 5
Opposite parties has been appeared in this case and filed their Written statement. Dated 17-12-2014. In W.S. the opposite party no.-1 has admitted the claim of complainants but repudiated on the ground that the complainant had made delay in furnishing information to the insurance company. When the said information was given to the opposite party no1 the company immediately process the claim of complainant vide claim no.3368038003. The theft of insured vehicle is a type of carelessness of the complainant as not using anti theft devices and on the aforesaid ground prayed to dismiss the present case.
Opposite party no- 2 ( Bank ) filed his written statement on 15-09-2015. In W.S. he has admitted that the said vehicle was financed by opposite party bank. It has been also admitted that the complainant had also informed him regarding the said theft on 10-05-2013 which was insured by opposite party no.1 He has further submitted that It is duty of complainant to prove his case and Opposite party no. 2 is not responsible for the present case. So prayed to free the Opposite party no.2 ( Bank ) from the said complaint case.
Considering the facts, circumstances, available with the record as well as allegation of respective parties the insurance policy has been admitted by the opposite parties and the said auto was stolen away during the covered period of insurance. The incident of theft is proved by the final report of police and acceptance of court. The statement of Opposite party no1 in para 8 of his written statement “The stolen vehicle was about 1 year old hence the assessment of claim will be after deduction, depreciation value of so insured sum of money” is unjustified and unreasonable ground which is sessions deficiency in service. As such we have no hesitation to say that the case of complainant deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly the case of complainant is allowed and opposite party no. 2 has been free from this case opposite party no.1 ( insurance company) is directed to pay sum assured amount Rs. 153416/- with interest @ 8 % from the date of theft along with Rs. 15000/- as mental harassment & litigation cost. All the payment should be made to the complainant within 30 days of the order otherwise the complainant is entitled to get it recover from the process of law.
