STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, SCO No.57, Sector 26-D, Chandigarh through its Senior Divisional Manager, Pranob Sen.

                                      .... Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Nishant Kumar Thakur S/o Sh. Vipat Ram R/o Flat No.6, Yuvraj Homes, Chajumjra, near Model Town, Kharar, Mohali.

….Respondent/Complainant.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Present through Video Conferencing:-        

Sh. J. P. Nahar, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Nishant Kumar Thakur, respondent/complainant in person.

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA,  MEMBER             

                This appeal has been filed by the opposite party (appellant herein) against order dated 05.04.2021  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.86 of 2020 filed by the  complainant (respondent herein) was allowed in the following manner:-

“10]      In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party is proved. Therefore, present the complaint is allowed against the OP and the OP is directed as under:-

1. To pay Insured Declare Value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.671697/- to the complainant along with interest @10% p.a. from 1.4.2018 (i.e. after three month’s period of loss) till its actual payment.
2. To pay Rs.15,000/- as composite amount towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant on account of deficient services as well as litigation cost.

         This order be complied with by the OP, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.15,000/- apart from above relief.”

2.             Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant got his Swift DVI Car bearing Regd. No.PB01B-4231 insured with the opposite party for the period from 24.2.2017 to 23.2.2018 having Insured Declared Value of Rs.6,71,697/-.  On night of 28.12.2017, the complainant’s driver parked the said vehicle at 9.30 PM near his house No.1089, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh and on the next day morning i.e. 29.12.2017 at 8.30 AM, when the said driver came to pick the car, he found that the said car was stolen. He immediately intimated the complainant and also to the police telephonically, who lodged FIR No.264 dated 29.12.2017.  The opposite party was also informed about the theft of the vehicle on 2.1.2018 and Untraced Report dated 30.1.2019 issued by Court was also submitted to the opposite party.  The statement of driver of the vehicle was also got recorded as required by the opposite party on 27.5.2019. The complainant submitted the keys of the vehicle as well as other documents along with his claim but the opposite party did not settle the claim.  Hence, a complaint was filed before the District Commission.

3.             On the other hand, the opposite party contested the complaint and stated that though vehicle was registered on 12.7.2017 and its fitness was valid up-to 23.3.2019 yet it was not having Chandigarh Permit and as such, there was violation of terms & conditions of the policy.  It was further stated that the vehicle was being plied as Taxi with Uber Cab and brought to Chandigarh unauthorizedly, in violation of conditions of Permit. It was further stated that the opposite party did not delay the claim rather the complainant did not submit the document i.e. Entry Tax Receipt for processing the claim. 

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