STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/5/A/16/121 (Against the Order dated 20 January 2025 in Complaint No.

null of the null)

New India Assurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - Reg. office 2nd floor 430 Niranjanpur, Saharanpur Road,Dehradun through its Auth.

Sig.NCDRC,UTTARAKHAND.

Versus Surbhit KUmar .......Respondent(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - s/o Rajender Singh r/o Atmalpur Baungla, Po. and Teh. Haridwar.NCDRC,UTTARAKHAND.

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MS. KUMKUM RANI, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. C.M. SINGH, MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT :

Mr T.S. Bindra (Advocate) FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

Nemo Dated: 20 January 2025 FINAL ORDER ORDER (Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 456 of 2013 styled as Sh. Surbhit Kumar vs.

Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed by the District Commission.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant had purchased a vehicle Bolero, engine No. G.H.B. 4H67406 Chassis No. M.A.

1P.S. 2 G.H.K.B. 5H90855 dated 31.08.2011 for Rs. 6,72,220/- which was insured on dated 01.09.2011 after paying Rs. 19,564/- to the opposite parties. As per the allegations of the complainant, the above vehicle was stolen in the night of 21/22.10.2011 and after several efforts, when it was not traced, a report of theft of subject vehicle was submitted to the P.S. Bahadrabad on dated 25.10.2011 in writing. The police also investigated the matter and submitted Final Report in the above incident on dated 12.01.2012 which was accepted by the competent court and the Final Report was registered under Misc. Case No. 46 of 2012, Surbhit vs. Unknown and learned IInd Additional Civil Judge (S.D./J.M.), Haridwar had accepted the same. A photocopy thereof was submitted before the opposite parties, but inspite of theft of subject vehicle, its compensation was not paid to the complainant. Hence, a legal notice to this effect was dispatched to the opposite parties – Insurance Company on dated

27.09.2013, but no action was taken, hence a consumer complaint was submitted.

3. The opposite parties had submitted its written statement alleging that the complainant had submitted a claim information paper before the answering opposite parties on dated 15.11.2011 and on such basis, the answering opposite parties had deputed their Surveyor/ investigator Sh. Upendra Kumar for its inspection and examination, who had submitted its report dated 21.08.2012. The said investigator after observing all the aspects and all the documents of the subject vehicle gave his finding that the complainant has shown theft of his subject vehicle on dated 20/21 October, 2011 from outside of his residence whereas the registration and payment of Road Tax was done on the very same day. Information about theft of subject vehicle vide its letter dated 23.08.2012 was belatedly given to the police. After receiving the Surveyor report, the insurance company requested the complainant to submit requisite documents, but few documents were made available to the insurance company. The insurance company again requested the complainant to submit the requisite documents vide its letter dated 30.08.2012 and 05.09.2012, but the complainant has not submitted any such desired documents. It is required that upon theft of subject vehicle, the insured – complainant has to submit R.C. and key of the subject vehicle alongwith letter of subrogation and letter of undertaking to the Insurance Company, but the same was not given to the insurance company. It is further submitted that the complainant has not completed the formalities, therefore, the complaint is pre-mature and liable to be dismissed.

4. T