Haryana

Sonipat

296/2014

ISHWAR SINGH S/O KISHAN LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. THE BRANCH DIVISIONAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENER - Opp.Party(s)

RAKESH SINGH SAROHA

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.296 of 2014

Instituted on: 10.11.2014                                                     

Date of order:01.03.2016 

 

 

Ishwar Singh son of Shri Kishan Lal, r/o 68/25, Arya Nagar, Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

1.The Branch/Divisional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company, 19 Reliance Centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate-Mumbai-400001.

2.The Branch Manager, Reliance general Ins. Co. Ltd. service to be effected through Branch office at City Centre, GT road Opp IB College, Panipat.

                                       …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. RS Saroha Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Joginder Kuhar, Advocate for respondents.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the registered owner of a tractor no.HR10N/7423 which was insured with the respondents for a sumofRs.365750/- for the period valid w.e.f. 28.12.2009 to 27.12.2010 and unfortunately, the said tractor was stolen on 20.12.2010 by some unknown person.  FIR no.365 dted 23.12.2010 u/s 379 IPC was registered with PS Sadar Sonepat. The complainant also intimated the respondents and lodged his claim by submitting all the required documents including the untraced report which were required by the respondents and Royal Associates, Investigating and Detective Agency.  But till date the respondents have not paid the claim amount to the complainant.  However, on 17.2.2010 the respondents sent a letter to the complainant that the captioned claim is not tenable under the policy and we are filing the papers. The complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant has not completed the required formalities and has not submitted second ignition key and required documents to the respondents despite repeated requests vide letter dated 6.4.2011, 22.4.2011 and 16.5.2011 and in the absence of the same, the claim of the complainant could not be settled and later-on it was repudiated as there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant.  The respondents have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant since there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondents wrongly and illegally have repudiated the claim of the complainant whereas he has completed all the formalities of the respondents and have also submitted all the required documents to the respondents and investigating agency.  So, there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the present complaint is beyond limitation. Further the complainant has not completed the required formalities and has not submitted second ignition key and required documents to the respondents despite repeated requests vide letter dated 6.4.2011, 22.4.2011 and 16.5.2011 and in the absence of the same, the claim of the complainant could not be settled and later-on it was repudiated as there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant.  The respondents have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant since there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondents since the bare perusal of the document Ex.P6 itself shows that the untraced report was issued by the ld. JMIC Sonepat on 8.2.2012 and he has received the copy of the same on 8.6.2012.  The complainant immediately on receipt of the copy on 8.6.2012 has sent the same

to the respondents on 9.6.2012 through courier.  But even after receiving this untraced report, the respondents have not issued any letter regarding any further information for settlement of the claim of the complainant.  So, the objection of the respondents that the present complaint is beyond limitation is not tenable in the eyes of law because the complainant has supplied the untraced report to the respondent and now it was the duty of the respondents to settle the claim of the complainant  or to issue no claim letter to the complainant if there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  But till the filing of the present complaint, neither the respondents have issued any “no claim” letter to the complainant nor has settled the claim of the complainant.

         The other contention of the respondents is that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes at the time of theft.  But the contents of the FIR, no where supports the above stand of the respondents.  So, it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents while not paying the claim amount to the complainant. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.3,65,000/- (Rs.three lacs sixty five thousand) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.two thousand for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (DV Rathi)            (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF           President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced 01.03.2016