Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iii)    To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation costs.

This order shall be complied with by OPs within two months from the date of receipt of its certified copy; failing which the OPs shall pay the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization by the complainant, besides payment of litigation costs."

      The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being the owner of truck bearing registration No.HR37C-3067, which was purchased by him, to earn his livelihood, got the same insured from the Opposite Parties, vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-1, valid for the period from 23.03.2012 to 22.03.2013, for the Insured Declared Value to the tune of Rs.7.70 lacs, on payment of premium of Rs.21,672/-. It was stated that the said vehicle, was hypothecated, in favour of Sunderam Finance Ltd. It was further stated that the complainant had made the full and final payment of the loan amount to Sunderam Finance Ltd. It was further stated that, on night intervening 31.07.2012/ 01.08.2012, the said vehicle was stolen from the premises of Truck Union Dera Bassi, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali, where it was parked by Sh. Pawan Kumar, its driver, after getting it loaded, with a view to drive the same to the destination, on the next day. It was further stated that, as such, FIR No.141 dated 18.08.2012 (Annexure C-2) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was got registered in Police Station Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

      It was further stated that the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.1 and requested it to settle his claim as per Insured Declared Value of the vehicle. It was also told by the complainant to the representatives of Opposite Party No.1, that he had been supplied only one key, by the previous owner of the vehicle, in question, from whom he had purchased the same. It was further stated that despite that, the Opposite Parties, failed to settle the genuine claim of the complainant. 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 Rs.7.70 lacs (IDV), alongwith interest @12% P.A., from the date of theft, till realization; compensation, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, for mental agony, and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/-.

      The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted that the complainant got the vehicle, in question, insured from them, vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-1, valid for the period from 23.03.2012 to 22.03.2013, for the Insured Declared Value to the tune of Rs.7.70 lacs, on payment of premium of Rs.21,672/-. It was denied that the complainant had purchased the vehicle, in question, for using the same, to earn his livelihood.  It was pleaded that since the complainant had purchased the vehicle, in question, for using the same, for commercial purpose, he did not fall within the definition of a consumer.  Theft of the truck, in question, on the date and from the place, mentioned in the complaint, was admitted.  It was denied that the Opposite Parties assured the complainant to finalize his claim. It was stated that the claim raised by the complainant, in respect of theft of the vehicle, in question, could not be considered, without the original set of keys thereof having been deposited by him. It was further stated that several request letters were sent to the complainant to provide the second set of keys of the vehicle, in question, or to accept the claim, on non-standard basis, but he did not respond. It was further stated that when no intimation was received from the complainant, his claim was closed as "Final Closure" vide letter dated 22.04.2014, Annexure C-5, as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

      On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the order passed by the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 

      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. It was not disputed that the complainant got the vehicle, in question, insured from the Opposite Parties, vide the Insurance Policy Annexure C-1, valid for the period from 23.03.2012 to 22.03.2013, for the Insured Declared Value to the tune of Rs.7.70 lacs, on payment of premium of Rs.21,672/-. The factum that the vehicle, in question, was stolen, on the night intervening 31.07.2012/01.08.2012, from the premises of Truck Union, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar Mohali, where it was parked by the driver thereof, after getting it loaded for driving the same to the destination, on the next morning, was also admitted. It was also admitted that FIR No.141 (Annexure C-2) dated 18.08.2012, under Section 379 of the IPC, with regard to theft of the vehicle, was got registered. The factum of intimation of  theft of the vehicle, in question, prior to the lodging of FIR was also admitted. It was also admitted that the Police could not trace the vehicle, in question. When the complainant requested the Opposite Parties, for the settlement of his claim, they asked him to deposit the second set of keys of the vehicle, in question, but when he could not produce the same, they demanded consent letter for settlement of the same (claim) at 70% of the Insured Declared Value, on furnishing the stamp paper duly notarized.