IMPORTANT POINT
Inordinate Delay – The appellant/insurance company has committed deficiency in service in not deciding the claim of the respondent No.1/ complainant for an inordinate delay even after having sufficient documents to decide the same.

JUDGMENT

Gautam Chourdiya, President—This appeal, filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short) is directed against order dated 25/10/2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred as to “District Commission” for short), in Complaint Case No.CC/2017/26, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 herein alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the opposite parties in non-payment of insurance claim of his stolen vehicle was partly allowed and the opposite party No.1/ insurance company was directed to pay within 45 days the IDV of the vehicle Rs.4,91,410/- (Four Lacs Ninety One Thousand Four Hundred & Ten) with normal interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of incident of theft of vehicle i.e. 06.10.2015 along with compensation for mental agony Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand). Aggrieved, the insurance company has preferred this appeal.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent No.1 herein purchased a tractor with the help of finance of Rs.4,20,000/- provided by the opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2, which was registered vide registration No.CG-10-Y-7294. The said tractor was got insured from the opposite party No.1/ respondent No.1 for the period between 06.07.2015 to 05.07.2016 and the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.4,91,410/-. The said tractor was stolen in the night of 06.10.2015 from the house of the complainant / appellant. The incident was immediately intimated to the Police Station Kota and the insurance company as well. Thereafter, insurance claim was submitted before the insurance company / appellant but the same was not settled by the insurance company for want of closure report of the concerned Court in the matter. Several efforts were made by the complainant / respondent No.1 but the claim was not paid, hence complaint was filed before the District Commission seeking direction to the opposite parties for payment of IDV of the vehicle Rs.4,91,410/- (Four Lacs Ninety One Thousand Four Hundred and Ten) with interest from the date of its theft or in alternative the amount of loan of the vehicle be paid by the opposite party No.1/appellant and by paying balance margin money to the complainant/respondent No.1 they be discharged from their duties. New vehicle be provided to the complainant/respondent No.1 at the place of stolen vehicle waiving off the earlier due interests and installments and new installment may be fixed from the date of handing over the new vehicle. Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs) also be directed to be paid jointly and severally along with cost of litigation.

3. The opposite party No.1/appellant insurance company in its written version has denied the allegations leveled in the complaint and has averred that on receipt of intimation of the incident of theft, letters were issued seeking certain details, purchase bill, RC, keys and photographs of the vehicles, which were not provided by the complainant/ respondent No.1 and due to non-cooperation of the complainant / respondent No.1 himself his claim could not be settled, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Thus, the complaint was filed without any cause of action, which is liable to be dismissed being immature.

4. The opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 in its written version has also denied the allegations leveled against them in the complaint and averred that they are the financer of the vehicle and just to avoid payment of amount of loan account the complainant/ respondent No.1 has impleaded them as a party in this complaint. The issue involved in the matter is

purely between the complainant/ respondent No.1 and the opposite party No.1/ appellant insurance company, hence this opposite party / respondent be discharged being the financer of the vehicle and the complaint be dismissed against the opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2