Complainant Sukhbir Singh through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter, called the Act) has prayed for issuance of necessary directions to the opposite parties to remit the payment of Rs.7,00,000/- alongwith interest of 12% per annum from the date of loss till actual payment. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses and any other relief to which he may be deemed and entitled, in the interest of justice and fair play.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he insured the vehicle Hyundai Verna CRDI for a sum assured of Rs.7,00,000/- with the opposite party no.3 on behalf of remaining opposite parties in his name vide policy no.OG-111202-1801-00003243 which was for the period from 17.6.2010 to 16.6.2011 midnight and got received premium of Rs.19,499/- against the said policy. He has further pleaded that on 7.7.2010 his vehicle had been robbed by unknown, unsocial element from Tanda near Sant Marry Convent School, Tanda Near village Shadipur. His friend Sh.Ashwani Kumar Gupta, who has expired now alongwith his family members were coming from Manakpur after paying obeisance in his car Hyndai Verna colour white bearing no.PB-18-Q-2828 alongwith other documents, cash and costly ornaments. After the said robbery of the vehicle, his friend Ashwani Kumar Gupta got registered an F.I.R. No.118 dated 8.7.2010 in the Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur. Further more, after registering the F.I.R. the police made their best efforts to trace the said vehicle but all in vain and the police issued a non traceability report dated 23.9.2011. He lodged the claim with the opposite party for getting the insurance of the car pursuance of insurance claim no.OC-11-1202-1801-00002993 by submitting all the necessary documents to the opposite parties no.2 and 4 for the sanctioning of the claim and payment. On demand of some more concerned documents by the opposite party, he submitted the same but the opposite parties repudiated/rejected his genuine claim. E-mail dated 6.2.2014 and a legal notice dated 14.7.2015 were served upon the opposite parties but till date the opposite parties have not responded. He has gone Abroad and he has constituted, nominated, appointed Smt.Neelam Rani w/o Sh.Ashwani Gupta, resident of Mohalla Khanda Khola, Batala as his special attorney for filing the present complaint and doing all the necessary acts in connection with the present complaint on his behalf vide special power of attorney executed on 11.12.2013. Hence the present complaint has been filed.

3.       Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed their joint written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The vehicle is in the name of Sukhbir Singh at the time of alleged loss; the claim of the claimant is not within limitation. Hence barred by limitation; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Actually the claim has been filed regarding the theft of the vehicle. After that the investigator has been appointed and the claim has been duly investigated by The Vigilant Detective Bureau. As per his investigation, some queries have been put to the complainant but he failed to give proper reply. The complainant was also requested to answer some questionnaires as detailed in the said letters alongwith the documentary evidence, but no response has been given by the insured due to which the claim has been closed. The letters dated 16.8.2010, 3.9.2015, 28.9.2015, 16 November, 2010 had been sent to the insured in this regard, but there is no reply due to which the claim has been repudiated. Afterwards, Mrs. Neelam request to reconsider the claim. In reply to that two letters dated 29 April, 2013 and 16 May, 2013 have been sent and the below given information has been demanded from the complainant.  The complainant was asked to provide certificate from Notary Pubic Mr.Randhawa, to the effect that Sukhbir Singh and he/she were present at the time of attestation of General Power of Attorney and witnesses had seen and verified such attestation and entry made to the register, if yes, then entry number and extract of register. On merits, it was submitted that the claim has been filed and has been duly investigated by the insurance co. and duly investigated by Vigilant Bureau Investigator and lot of discrepancies came. Several letters have been sent to the complainant to reply the queries, but the complainant failed to give any reply as such the claim has been repudiated after giving sufficient opportunities to the complainant. Even further when the request has been made by Neelam wife of Ashwani Chopra to reopen the claim and against the letters have been sent dated 29 April, 2013 and 16 April, 2013, but no reply has been received as such the claim has not been reopened. It was further submitted that the complainant is not entitled for any relief and as the claim has been repudiated in 16 November 2010, as it has been duly mentioned in that letter that the reply to be given within 7 days from the receipt of letter, failing which the claim be repudiated. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Smt.Neelam Rani, Special Attorney of Sh.Sukhir Singh complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence.

5.       Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of  Sh.Jagir Singh Investigator Ex.OP-1 and of Sh.Navjeet Singh Authorized Signatory Ex.OP-2 alongwith other documents Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP35 and closed the evidence.  

6.    We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the complainant’s Theft-Claim’s non-settlement by the OP insurers alleging non-submission of requisitioned documents and specific replies to the queries repeatedly raised in the investigative letters followed by subsequent reminders as a result of non-receipt of complainant-side response.

7.       We find that the present complaint has been put forth in an apparently callous and non-orderly manner. The complaint has been signed by the Attorney Holder Mrs. Neelam but has not been titled accordingly. Further, the filing of the original claim on the strength of an allegedly ‘fake’ POA (power of attorney) has not been appropriately and successfully rebutted. No doubt, the present complaint has been filed on the strength of an acceptable POA but it does not ratify the previous POA or even filing of Claim before the OP insurers.

8.       Lastly, the complainant has neither responded to the OP insurers’ queries with requisite replies nor even attempted to rebut/ explain these in appropriately successful manner. We find that the complainant ought to have sufficiently strengthened the OP’s insurer’s hands with requisite documents/ evidence etc so as to have enabled them to ‘settle’ the insurance claim in question. However, it is not understood as for what purpose and as to why the complainant had been reluctant to provide the requisitioned documents/information to the OP insurers for ‘settlement’ of the deferred claim.               

9.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the complainant to provide the requisitioned documents/information to the OP insurers within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders and who in turn shall settle the present insurance claim (in question) within 30 days of the receipt of documents/information, as above. The parties here shall in their own maturity and mutual-interest, take expeditious measures to reach a judicious settlement.  

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records. 

                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President   

Announced:                                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

August,18 2016                                                                 Member

*MK*