ORDER

(Passed on  19/3/2019)

PER SMT.KALPANA JANGDE (KUTE) HON’BLE MEMBER.

             The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the OP Nos.1 to 3 for no claim of his insurance claim of theft of vehicle and thereby claiming  insurance claim of vehicle amounting to Rs.48,260/- alongwith 15% interest and claiming compensation towards mental, physical torture and financial loss of Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest @15% and also cost of proceeding amounting to Rs.10,000/-.

2.       The brief facts leading to this petition are that the Complainant is the owner of the motor cycle Hero Passion Pro bearing Registration No.MH 34/AY-5056 which was purchased by him on 3/3/2016 for Rs.57,842/- from showroom of OP No.3. Thereafter the said vehicle was insured with OP No.1 through OP No.3 as agent of OP No.1. OP No.2 is head office of OP No.1. The said vehicle was insured with OP No.1 for the period of 31/3/2016 to 2/3/2017 vide insurance policy cover note No.3005/31365725/11717/000.

3.       On 22/1/2017, the said vehicle was stolen by unknown person, and on the same day the intimation of said theft was given to OP No.1. The complainant searched for the above said vehicle as per advise of the police, but could not find out. Hence after two days, i.e. on 24/1/2017, the complainant lodged the complaint and F.I.R. No.192/17 came to be registered and the Police Officer inquired about the vehicle but could not find out. Thereafter the complainant gave intimation of the theft to OP No.1 and also claimed insured amount. The complainant submitted all the original documents with OP No.2 as per version of OP No.1.  at that time, OP Nos.1 & 2 assured that complainant’s vehicle claim No.M0T06296277 is prepared but submit the original documents i.e. affidavit, Xerox copy bank passbook, Cancelled cheque and another key of the said vehicle with OP No.2. Therefore, the complainant submitted all original documents. Inspite of submitting all documents the OP failed to adjudicate the insurance claim. Hence on 3/8/2017 complainant sent legal notice to OP Nos.1 to 3 through his advocate. The OP neither complied the notice nor replied. The OP Nos.1 & 2 informed to the complainant as “no claim”  by letter dated 22/8/2017. The complainant submitted in his petition that though the complainant submitted all the documents, the OP failed to adjudicate the insurance claim. Therefore it amounts to deficiency in service for which the petition is filed by complainant.

4.       The complaint came to be admitted and notices were served on the OP Nos.1 to 3 as per postal authority report filed by complainant at Exh.10. Inspite of  service of notice to OP Nos.1 to 3 did not appear before the Forum nor they filed reply to the complaint. Hence order to proceed exparte against OP Nos.1 to 3 came to be passed below  Ex.1  on 24/9/2018.

5.         We have gone through the complaint, affidavit and documents filed by the complainant respectively at Exh.7 and 12. We have also heard the oral arguments advanced by the complainant.

                    Points                                                                                     Finding

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer of OP Nos.1 to 3 ?           Yes

2.  Whether  there is deficiency in service on the                                    Yes

 Part of OP nos. 1 and 2?                                                                                                                                                   3.  Whether  there is deficiency in service on the                                  

Part of OP no.3?                                                                                       No                                                            

  4.What  order ?                                                                 As per final order..

As to issue No.1

6.      The complainant had purchased the motor cycle Hero Passion Pro bearing Registration No.MH 34/AY-5056 for Rs.57,842/- from showroom of OP No.3 on 3/3/2016. Thereafter the said vehicle was insured with OP No.1 through OP No.3 as agent of OP No.1. OP No.2 is head office of OP No.1. The said vehicle was insured with OP No.1 for the period of 3/3/2016 to 2/3/2017 vide insurance policy cover note No.3005/31365725/11717/000. The Xerox copy of the invoice issued by OP Nos.3 and Xerox copy of policy issued by OP No.1 and 2 are on record at Exh.8. Hence the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) and the services as promised are the services within the meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of CP act. and hence the issue is decided accordingly.

As to issue No.2

7.        The incidence of theft occurred at Chandrapur on 22/1/2017 and the F.I.R. No.192/17  was registered on 24/1/2017 and the delay is sufficiently explained by the complainant by giving reasons that as per advise of the police he firstly searched the vehicle, but he could not find out, hence thereafter he lodged the report. Therefore the delay in registration of F.I.R. of two days can not be said to be  a delay. It is usual practice of the police that they initially avoid to register the offence of theft immediately after report, and advice to search the vehicle on their own so as to avoid further complications. So there is no inordinate delay .

8         On perusal of the complaint and documents filed at ex.7 and 12 it reveals that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with the OP Nos.1 & 2 and policy was in force on the date of incidence of theft.  On  22/1/2017, the said vehicle was stolen by unknown person, and on the same day the intimation of said theft was given to OP No.1 and also F.I.R. No.192/17 came to be registered on 24/1/2017. Thereafter the complainant gave intimation of the theft to OP No.1 and also filed insurance claim alongwith documents.  Inspite of that the OP Nos.1 & 2 closed complainant’s claim as “no claim”. The OP Nos.1 to 3, inspite of service of notice  did not appear before the Forum and rebut the averments made in the complaint. Hence the complainant’s averment that inspite of submitting requisite documents, the OP Nos.1 & 2 did not adjudicate the claim, will have to be relied upon. There is no justification and evidence by OP therefore the contention of repudiation for differ statement about the keys  cannot be accepted . Therefore, the complainant was denied the benefits of the policy without any basis by the OP Nos.1 & 2 which must have caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.  Hence in view of this, the OP Nos.1 & 2 ought to have allowed the claim of the complainant on non standard basis. However, it treated the same as “no claim”.  Hence the complainant is entitled to the claim on non standard basis but without any compensation and cost. Hence we record our finding to this issue in the affirmative.

As to issue No.3

9.          The OP No.3 has acted as an agent of OP Nos.1 & 2 in the matter of obtaining the policy.  The OP No.3 is not in any way concerned with insurance claim. Hence no liability can be fastened on OP No.3 in this regard. Hence we record our finding to this issue in the negative.

As to issue No.4

10.         In view of our observations as above, we pass the following order..

Final order

1. The Complaint is partly allowed.

2. O.P. Nos.1 & 2 are directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.36,195/-i.e. 75% of the I.D. value of the insured vehicle claim amount on “non standard basis”. 

3.  No order  has been passed against OP no.3 .

4. No order as to costs and compensation and instant.

5.  Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.

(Smt.Kalpana Jangade (Kute)  (Smt.Kirti Vaidya (Gadgil)     (Shri.Atul D.Alsi)

               Member                                 Member                                    President