STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office – SCF 40-41, Phase-5, Mohali, Punjab 160059, through its Divisional Manager/Manager.

                                      .. Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Randeep Singh S/o Late Kuljeet Singh resident of H.no.700, Sector 20-A, U.T., Chandigarh.

….Respondent/Complainant..

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Present through Video Conferencing:-      

Sh. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. S K. Guleria, Advocate for the respondent.

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA,  MEMBER           

                   This appeal has been filed by the opposite party (National Insurance Company Limited) against order dated 02.05.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh) [in short ‘District Commission’] vide which consumer complaint No.60 of 2018 was allowed against it (opposite party) by awarding following relief:-

“12]     From the above discussion & findings, as made in the preceding paragraphs, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Party to pay the amount of ‘insured declared value’ (IDV) of the vehicle in question to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief.”  

2.                It was the case of the complainant (respondent herein) before the District Commission that his Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing Regd. No.CH-01-AN-3851, insured with the opposite party, got stolen by some unknown person while it was parked outside his house.  FIR No.207, dated 16.10.2013 was also got lodged.  The incident was also reported to the opposite party and all available documents were supplied as demanded. It was stated that all the documents including copy of RC, Insurance Policy and other relevant documents were taken away by the thief. It was further stated that the police did not intimate the complainant about the outcome of his police case and it was only in reply to his application under Right to Information Act, he came to now that his police case was sent as Untraced on 15.12.2013. It was further stated that the opposite party being hands in gloves with the Police kept him in dark and caused huge financial loss to him.  It was further stated that the opposite party repudiated his claim without reasonable cause and justification. Hence, complaint before District Commission was filed by the complainant.

3.                On the other hand, the opposite party contested the complaint by filing short reply, wherein, it was stated that the alleged theft took place on 9.10.2013, the claim was closed as ‘No Claim’ on 8.8.2014 and that the complaint filed in 2018 was hopelessly time barred. 

4.                The parties led evidence in support of their case.

5.                After hearing arguments of the parties and going through the record, the District Commission allowed, as stated above.

6.                We have also heard the Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record and written arguments.

7.                The grounds on which, the order of District Commission has been assailed are that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R by the complainant as the theft took place on 09.10.2013 and F.I.R was got registered on 16.10.2013; that the complainant was negligent in taking due care of the vehicle as he left the keys as well as all the documents, which were taken way by the thief alongwith the vehicle and that the theft was not informed