ANJU DEVI WIFE OF KISHORI LAL Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2014-8-1
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on August 01,2014

Anju Devi Wife Of Kishori Lal Appellant
VERSUS
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V. M/S. HARCHAND RAI CHANDAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS TRILOCHAN JANE [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA SINGH VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 18.06.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
(2.)THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased three wheeler make APE Auto D3S Plaggio Diesel, bearing temporary registration No.PB -65 -R -0373 -T, on 25.10.2012, for earning her livelihood, and got the same insured, from the Opposite Parties, vide Policy Annexure A -4, for the period from 25.10.2012 to 24.10.2013, for the Insured Declared Value, to the tune of Rs.1,84,650/ -, on payment of premium, to the tune of Rs.5406/ -. It was stated that, on 26.04.2013, at about 4.15 P.M., the complainant alongwith her husband, went to the District Courts, Chandigarh, and parked the aforesaid vehicle, at the temporary parking, in front of the said Courts. After about half an hour, when the complainant and her husband came back, they found the vehicle, in question, missing. The complainant and her husband tried their level best to trace the said vehicle, but to no avail.
(3.)IT was further stated that intimation was given to the Police of Chandigarh, through Police Control Room (PCR), on the same day. It was further stated that the Police of Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh, did not visit the spot, on the basis of message received by the PCR and asked for the submission of an application. Accordingly, an application dated 02.05.2013, regarding the theft of vehicle, in question, was given to the Police, on the basis whereof FIR No.143, dated 02.05.2013 under Section 379 IPC, was registered by the Police of Police Station, Sector 36, U.T., Chandigarh. It was further stated that the complainant also informed the Opposite Parties, well in time, with regard to the theft of the vehicle, in question. It was further stated that, on the next day, the complainant was told by the representative of the Opposite Parties, that the claim would be registered only after the lodging of FIR. It was further stated that copy of the FIR was given, to the complainant, by the Police Station concerned, on 04.05.2013. Thereafter, the complainant submitted the claim form, alongwith the requisite documents, to the Opposite Parties. The vehicle could not be traced by the Police.
However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Opposite Parties, vide letter dated 19.07.2013 Annexure A -10. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant, on flimsy grounds. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,84,650/ -; compensation, to the tune of Rs.80,000/ -, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/ -.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.