Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Consumer Complaint No.113 of 2018
Date of Institution: 28.02.2018
Date of Decision: 09.12.2021
Ashok Kumar son of Shri Wazir Singh, resident of Village
Haibatpur, Tehsil and District Jind.
…..Complainant
V E R S U S
1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office,
LIC Building near Bus Stand, G.T. Road, Panipat through its
Branch Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Micro Office, near
Bir Singh Malik Gohana, District Sonepat through its Branch
Manager.
….. Opposite Parties
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.
Ms. Manjula, Member.
Present:-
Shri Abhimanyu Batra, counsel for the complainant.
Shri B.R. Madan, counsel for the opposite parties
O R D E R
T.P.S. MANN, J.
Complainant Ashok Kumar has filed the present
complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
against the opposite parties qua deficiency in service provided by
them and with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay him
insured amount of Rs.20,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per
annum.
2.
According to the complainant, he was registered owner
of a bus bearing registration No.UP-17-T-7701, which was
2
C.C. No.113 of 2018
Ashok Kumar Versus United India Insurance Company Limited
comprehensively insured through the opposite parties w.e.f.
27.05.2016 to 26.05.2017 for Rs.20,00,000/-. On the intervening
night of 14th and 15th April, 2017, the aforesaid bus of the
complainant was stolen by some unknown person while it was
parked near Metro Pillar No.480, Rajdhani Park, The Grand Sai
Vatika, Metro Service Road, New Delhi. FIR was also registered
with the police on 15.04.2017.
3.
It is also the case of the complainant that he had duly
informed the opposite parties about the theft of his vehicle.
Accordingly, he lodged a claim with the opposite parties and
fulfilled all the formalities of claim by furnishing/submitting the
requisite documents but the opposite parties paid no heed to his
claim and did nothing to satisfy the case/claim of the complainant.
Left with no other option, he served legal notice on 25.09.2017
upon the opposite parties, which was replied by the opposite
parties vide reply dated 30.10.2017 by stating that it had not been
verified by the opposite parties that whether the untraced report
had been filed before the Illaqa Magistrate and the same was also
not in the knowledge of the opposite parties. The stand of the
opposite parties for not granting the insured amount to the
complainant was that the untrace report had not been submitted by
the police and the same has also not been verified by the court of
Illaqa Magistrate.
4.
It is also submitted by the complainant that through an
email he received the information qua the investigation status of
3
C.C. No.113 of 2018
Ashok Kumar Versus United India Insurance Company Limited
the FIR. In the said email, it was stated that despite due efforts of
the police, the stolen vehicle could not be traced and the case has
been sent as untraced on 06.05.2017. It was also stated that if in
future anything came out then the case shall be reopened for
further investigation. Further, on 08.11.2017, counsel for the
complainant informed the counsel for the opposite parties vide
letter sent by registered post about the case status of the FIR by
stating that the opposite parties were duly informed and the untrace
report was duly submitted by the complainant before the opposite
parties. On 08.01.2018, the opposite parties changed the stand for
repudiation of the claim of the complainant by stating that as per
the investigation carried out by the investigator of the opposite
parties, the complainant had left his vehicle unattended. It was a
vague and unacceptable stand of the opposite parties with an
intention to harass the complainant by not accepting the claim of
the
