Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No : 988 of 2016
Date of Institution: 19.10.2016
Date of Decision : 04.10.2017
TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, SCO Complex No.3, Sector-16, Faridabad through its authorised officer Sh. Mohd. Azhar Wasi, Head North Zone Claims, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, SCO 232-234, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
Appellant-Opposite Party
Versus
Rajender Singh s/o Sh. Kishan Singh, Resident of House No.13, Village Chhainsa, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.
Respondent
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.
Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.
Argued by: Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the respondent.
O R D E R
BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated August 04th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2014.
2. TATA LPT truck bearing registration No.HR-38-R-8473 owned by Rajender Singh-complainant (respondent herein), was insured with the Insurance Company – Opposite Party regarding the period from March 27th, 2013 up to March 26th, 2014 mentioning the total Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle as Rs.14.00 lacs. On August 04th, 2013 when the above mentioned vehicle was being driven by Shokat s/o Sh. Nazar-driver on his way from Faridabad to Naggal (Rajasthan) reached near Shikrawa Lake, the vehicle was parked on one side of the road as the driver had to go in a nearby field to answer the call of nature. When Shokat driver returned back, he found the vehicle was not at the parking place and had been stolen by some unknown person. Regarding this incident, a criminal case was registered under F.I.R. No.324 on August 05th, 2013 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Punhana, District Mewat. Soon after, information was also given to the Insurance Company regarding theft of the vehicle. Recovery of the stolen vehicle could not be possible and untraced report was submitted by the Police which was accepted by the learned Illaqua Magistrate on October 09th, 2013. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated February 25th, 2014 mentioning that condition No.5 of the Insurance Policy was violated, as needed carefulness and precautions were not taken by the driver of the vehicle. The Insurance Company-opposite party did not make payment of the amount claimed despite service of legal notice dated April 01st, 2014.
3. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.14.00 lacs on account of losses caused due to theft of the vehicle with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of theft till realisation; to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. The Opposite Party- Insurance Company in its written version has taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant has concealed facts from the District Forum. As per version of the opposite party, information regarding theft of the vehicle was received on August 08th, 2013 and immediately M/s Vikas Kumar and Associates was appointed as investigator. Report was received from the investigator t
