DEVENDRA BANSAL v. NATIONAL INSU.CO.

(Passed on 7/2 /2020) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

1. This appeal by the complainant / appellant is directed against the order dated 6.5.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (for short the Forum) in CC No.773/2012 whereby the Forum has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.

2. Briefly put facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that he is the registered owner of Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No.MP 09 JU 2191, engine No.32230 and chassis No.22065, which is insured with the opposite party Insurance Company for a period from 11.6.2009 to 10.6.2010 for sum assured of Rs.18,000/-. It is alleged that the subject vehicle got stolen on 24.7.2009 regarding which the complainant had timely intimated the police and also the Insurance Company. The complainant had also submitted set of relevant documents i.e. copy of registration of the vehicle, insurance policy, FIR, the intimation to R.T.O. and the keys of the vehicle with the opposite party Insurance Company. The complainant had also submitted the Final Report filed in the matter dated19.11.2011 to the Insurance Company as well. The complainant alleged that the opposite party Insurance Company despite reminders did not settle the insurance claim of the complainant. The Insurance Company vide their letter dated 30.3.2012 intimated the complainant that his stolen vehicle has been recovered by the police on the basis of information received from NCRB website. When the complainant got to know regarding this, he noticed that the chassis number of the vehicle which was recovered is different from that of the complainants stolen vehicle and also the recovered vehicle was severely damaged. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party Insurance Company in not giving the insurance claim of the complainants vehicle he filed a complaint before the Forum seeking relief.

3. The opposite party Insurance Company resisted the complaint stating that the complainant himself had not co-operated with the Insurance Company regarding settlement of the claim. He submitted the FR on 9.1.2012 with the Insurance Company. The complainant is responsible for delay in settlement of the claim. Furthermore the complainants vehicle has been recovered by the police, regarding which the complainant was intimated on 27.1.2012, but the complainant is not interested in taking his vehicle. All he just wants is the sum insured, which is not payable.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant / appellant drew our attention to the National Crime Records Bureau Motor Vehicle Coordination System and made a submission that though the engine number of the enquired vehicle matches with that of the vehicle which was recovered, but the chassis number of the two vehicles is different. She further argued that the Insurance Company had delayed in settlement of the insurance claim on one pretext or another. The complainant is not responsible for delay in submission of the Final Report in the matter. She argued that the complainant / appellant cannot be compelled to take the vehicle which was recovered, when it is not the same vehicle which was stolen.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company argued that the complainant / appellant is only interested in getting the sum insured of the subject vehicle. When the vehicle has been recovered, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the sum insured. Moreover, there was delay on part of the appellant in submission of the relevant documents in the matter which has caused delay in settlement of the insurance claim for which the Insurance Company cannot be held responsible.

7. Careful perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the complainant / appellant was intimated by the respondent Insurance Company vide their letter dated 27.1.2012 that the complainants vehicle has been recovered by Civil Lines, Police station, District Amritsar. Through this letter the complainant was requested to recover his vehicle from the concerning police station.

8. In this regard we observe that the respondent Insurance Company had intimated the complainant regarding recovery of the subject vehicle on the basis of NCRB website. It appears that the respondent Insurance Company did not physically verify the subject vehicle. The complainant / appellant has alleged that the subject vehicle was extensively damaged. We observe that the vehicle which got stolen on 24.7.2009 was reported to be recovered on 27.1.2012. There are no photographs of the subject vehicle on record through which we could assess that it was the same vehicle which got stolen, when importantly the chassis number of the recovered vehicle does not match with that of the stolen vehicle, as mentioned in the National Crime Records Bureau. The Forum has erred in holding that the registration number of the recovered vehicle matches with that of the appellants vehicle when the registration number of the matched vehicle is left blank.

9. The appellant cannot be held liable for delay in filing of the Final Report in the matter, which is certainly not in his grip. However, when he approached the Insurance Company with the Final Report and requested for reopening of his claim file, the Insurance Company in response directed the complainant / appellant to obtain the recovered vehicle from the concerned police station without even ascertaining the vehicle to be belonging to the complainant / appellant. In the circumstances, when stolen vehicle is recovered, the Insurance Company is duty bound to reimburse for the damages in the vehicle. The respondent Insurance Company has been very negligent and has shown callousness in the matter.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of considered opinion that since the Final Report has been submitted in the matter and the requisite formalities with regard to the insurance claim of the stolen vehicle has been fulfilled by the complainant / appellant, he deserves the insured declared value of the subject vehicle.

11. Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside. This appeal is allowed and the respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay the insured declared value of the subject vehicle to the complainant / appellant with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. The compliance is to be done in a period of 6 weeks from today, failing which the aforesaid amount shall attract interest @ 9% p.a. for same period as mentioned above. The respondent Insurance Company shall also bear cost of this appeal and pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant / appellant, in a period of 6 weeks from today.. (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (Dr. Monika Malik) PRESIDENT MEMBER Phadke