BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.193 of 2018
Date of Instt. 07.05.2018
Date of Decision: 14.02.2022
Gautam Jain son of Narinder Jain resident of NL-277 Bazar Charat Singh Malka Chowk Mlaka Mohalla Jalandhar City.
..........Complainant
Versus
Branch Manager HDFC ERGO Insurance Company Limited Eminent Mall Near Guru Nanak Mission Chowk Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Rahul Pushkarna, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. R. K. Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OP.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that he got insured his vehicle make Scooter make Piaggio Model Vespa bearing No.PB-09-CV-5048 with the OP vide policy No.23122017108075000000. That the scooter of the complainant was stolen by unknown person on 11.06.2017 outside the shop of the complainant namely Jain General Store Jyoti Chowk, Jalandhar and intimation regarding theft was given to the Police on the same day i.e. 11.06.2017 and on the statement of complainant FIR No.82 dated 23.06.2017 u/S 379 IPC was registered at PS Div. No.4 Jalandhar. That the complainant also intimated about the theft to OP on same day i.e. 11.06.2017 and after registration of FIR, copy of FIR and Untraced Report dated 26.09.2017 and copy of Order dated passed by Ld.Court of Ashish Abrol was also provided to the OP for processing the claim of the complainant as complainant has suffered lot due to deficiency of the OP in providing good services to its customers. That after numerous visits to the OP with respect to status of claim of the complainant, complainant was astonished to know that claim of the complainant was not processed by the OP and OP is lingering on the payment of claim to the complainant. That complainant was informed about the processing of the claim of the complainant on 26.06.2017 however till date claim of the complainant has not been processed. That due to this negligence of the officials of the OP and unfair trade practice, the complainant has suffered huge loss in lacs to the value of the vehicle of the complainant and complainant suffered mental tension and harassment and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to settle the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.70,000/- for loss of vehicle and compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for damages and mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same is pre-matured. The complainant has failed to explain the delay of 15 days in intimation of loss given on 26.06.2017 to the OP of the theft of insured vehicle allegedly taken place on 11.06.2017. There is an inordinate delay of 12 days in intimating the loss of the insured vehicle to the police on 23.06.2017. Even the OP was not intimated of the theft of the insured vehicle immediately. The OP was informed about the theft on 26.06.2017 after registration of the FIR No.82 dated 23.06.2017 u/S 379 IPC with PS Div No.4, Jalandhar. Instead of explaining the delay in intimation of theft to the police as well as OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. It is the complainant who is at fault by not intimating the loss immediately to the OP. The OP was intimated of the loss on 26.06.2017 after fifteen days of loss of vehicle in theft on 11.06.2017. It is a condition of the insurance policy that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any loss or damaged and in the event of any claim, as such, there is breach of policy terms and conditions and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that there is no proof of timely intimation to the police and as such, the version of the complainant that police was intimated on the same day does not hold any water. On merits, the factum in regard to insurance of the vehicle as well as theft of the vehicle is admitted by the OP, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that he got insured his vehicle make Scooter Model Vespa bearing No.PB-08-CV-5048 with OP and on 11.06.2017 the above said vehicle of the complainant was stolen by unknown person and intimation regarding theft was given to the Police on the same day i.e. 11.06.2017 and FIR No.82 dated 23.06.2017 u/S 379 IPC was registered at PS Div. No.4, Jalandhar which is evident from Ex.C-1. Regarding this, untraced Report dated 26.09.2017 and copy of Order dated 03.01.2018 passed by the Ld. Court of Sh. Ashish Abrol, which is also on file. It has been alleged by the complainant that after numerous visits to the OP with respect to status of the claim of the complainant, the same was not processed by the OP and the OP lingered on the matter with one pretext to the other and due to this, the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. All these facts are proved by the complainant by filing the documents i.e. copy of FIR as Ex.C-1, copy of email dated 26.06.2017 as Ex.C-2, Certificate regarding tracing of the vehicle as Ex.C-3, Order passed by the Court as Ex.C-4. Request has been made to allow the complaint.
7. The contention of the OP is that the complaint of the complainant is pre-mature. The complainant has failed to explain the delay of 15 days in intimation of loss given on 26.06.2017 to the OP of the theft of insured vehicle and further alleged that there is an inordinate delay of 12 days in intimating the loss of the vehicle to the police on 23.06.2017 and further alleged that the OP was informed about the theft on 26.06.2017 after registration of the FIR. The claim was registered, but no decision has been taken as per on the claim. The present complaint is not maintainable, thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and request has been made to dismiss the claim.
8. As per the record furnished by the complainant and as per the affidavit, the intimation of theft was given to the OP on 26.06.2017 whereas the theft was committed on 11.06.2017 as per FIR and other document, relating to FIR Ex.C-1, Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4. As per Ex.C-3, the case has been closed as untraced on 14.09.2017. As per Ex.C2/O3, the claim has been registered. The complainant was intimated that the surveyor will contact you for vehicle inspection date & required documents. But the claim has not been settled as yet as per the submission of the parties. Since, the claim is still pending with OPs, therefore the present complaint is pre-mature.
9. Thus, the present complaint of the complainant is disposed of with the direction to the OP to complete the process of deciding the claim within 20 working days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the complainant is directed to submit the requisite documents to the OP, if any, and after receiving the required documents from the complainant, the OP is directed to decide the insurance claim of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the documents, failing which the OP will be liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. It is further ordered that if the complainant will not be satisfed with the settlement of the claim made by the OP, then complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Dated Jyotsna Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj
14.02.2022 Member President
