DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:306 of 2010] Date of Institution : 17.05.2010 Date of Decision : 08.08.2011 --------------------------------------- Sh. Suresh Saini son of Sh. Gian Chand resident of House No.22, CPWD QTRS. Sector 7B, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. National Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, SCO No.57, Sector 26, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager 2. National Insurance Company Limited, 3 Middleton Street, Post box No.9229, Kolkata. 3. Er. Vivek Kumar, House No.85, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESI DENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Hitender Kansal, Advocate for the complainant. Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate for OPs No.1 and 2. OP No.3 already exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Suresh Saini has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs:- i) To pay Rs.20,000/- being the claim amount along with up-to-date interest; ii) To pay compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay penalty for deficiency in service on the part of OPs; iv) To pay costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got his Yamaha Crux ‘R’ Motorcycle bearing Regd. No.HR-20-G-9772 comprehensively insured with OPs No.1 and 2 through OP No.3, their agent, vide policy (Annexure C-1) and paid a premium of Rs.434/-. The said vehicle was insured for the period from 17.11.2005 to 16.11.2006. According to the complainant, unfortunately his motorcycle was stolen from Kisan Mandi, Sector 68 Mohali and F.I.R. No.14 dated 11.1.2006 was lodged with Police Station, Phase VIII, Mohali. A claim was lodged with OPs No.1 & 2. OPs asked the complainant to submit untraceable report vide their letters dated 23.2.2006 and 2.3.2006. The complainant was asked to submit the sad untraceable report within 7 days vide letter dated 21.3.2006 failing which his claim file was to be treated as closed. Thereafter, the complainant wrote letters dated 28.03.2006 and 5.4.2006 to OPs and informed that the police authorities are still investigating the case. He requested them not to close his claim file until untraceable report is received from the Court. According to the complainant, OPs kept silent till 2008. When complainant approached them on 24.12.2008 for submitting the untraceable report dated 11.12.2008 issued by the court, he was surprised to hear that his claim file was untraceable in the office of OP No.1. The complainant was asked to wait for at least one month. It is averred that OP No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and on 13.10.2009 only, OPs No.1 & 2 accepted the untraceable report along with the keys and original registration certificate. Despite it, the claim was not settled. So, the complainant issued notice dated 26.12.2010 to OPs No.1 & 2. Thereafter, the complainant was shocked to receive a letter dated 9.3.2010 from OPs informing that his claim was closed on 21.3.2006 for want of untraced report. According to the complainant, treating the claim as ‘No Claim’ and closing the claim file in such an arbitrary manner without waiting for the untraceable report amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OPs No.1 and 2, it has been admitted that the motorcycle bearing Regd. No. HR-20-G-9772 was comprehensively insured with them for the period from 17.11.2005 to 16.11.2006. It is pleaded that after receiving intimation of theft from the complainant, OPs No.1 & 2 appointed an investigator and processed the claim. OPs No.1 and 2 have denied of having received letters dated 28.3.2006 and 5.4.2006 from the complainant. However, they have admitted the receipt of letter dated 13.9.2009 sent by the complainant. It has also been admitted that the claim file of the complainant was untraceable in the office of OPs No.1 & 2. According to these OPs, they had written a letter dated 19.3.2010 to the complainant informing him that the claim file was closed as ‘No Claim’ on 21.3.2006. In this letter, it was further intimated that the file could not be reopened as the claim was time barred. OPs No.1 & 2 have also regretted for delay in informing this fact to the complainant as the file was not traceable as the same was mixed up with old record. According to OPs No.1 and 2, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. OP No.3 was duly served through Process Server. However, neither OP No.3 appeared in person nor any authorized agent appeared on his behalf. Hence, he was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.7.2010. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 and have gone through the documents on record. 6. Admittedly, the claim of the complainant was closed as ‘No Claim’ on 21.3.2006 on the ground that the complainant had failed to submit untraceable report of the stolen vehicle. It is pertinent to mention here that untraceable report is given by the police to the court, in case during the investigation police fails to find out the culprit and the stolen articles are not recovered. The complainant has no control on the investigation of the police. The police take its own time in the investigation of the case. Even after the untraceable report is submitted to the Court, it is the discretion of the court to accept the same or to send the case for re-investigation. The complainant has no control over the court also. According to the complainant, he received the untraceable report on 11.12.2008 and soon thereafter, he went to OP office on 24.12.2008 to deliver the said report to OPs No.1 & 2. But he was informed that his file was not traceable in their office. He was asked to wait till the file is traced. Ultimately, the untraceable report was accepted/taken by OPs No.1 & 2 on 13.10.2009. 7. The learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 has failed to draw our attention to any of the clause in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy to show that production of untraceable report is a condition precedent for settlement of the claim. 8. As mentioned above, the complainant could submit the untraceable report only when it was made available to him. The complainant did so. He submitted the report as and when the same was received by him. In these circumstances, there is no negligence or fault on the part of the complainant. On the other hand, the fault lay on the part of OPs No.1 and 2 as they closed the case as “No Claim” without waiting for the untraceable report. For the sake of arguments, even if the case was filed for want of untraceable report, it should have been revived as soon as the untraceable report was submitted. Furthermore, as the claim was filed soon after the theft, the claim could not be declined being time barred simply because the untraceable report was given late. In these circumstances, the closing of the claim by OPs No.1 and 2 as ‘No Claim’ amounts to deficiency in service. 9. However, OP No.3 has no role to play in the settlement of the claim as he is only an agent of OPs No.1 and 2. Moreover, no allegation has been made against OP No.3 in the body of the complaint. In our view, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against qua OP No.3. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed against OP No.3. 10. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed qua OPs No.1 and 2 only and they are directed: - i) To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant being the IDV of the motorcycle in question. ii) to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment. iii) to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 11. This order be complied with by the OPs No.1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs no.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay Rs.30,000/- i.e. [Rs.20,000 + Rs.10,000] along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.17.05.2010 till actual payment besides payment Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 12. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 8th August 2011. (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.306 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 03.08.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed qua OPs No.1 and 2. However, the complaint is dismissed qua OP No.3. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 08.08.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
