Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/29

Sarwan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Anoopinder Singh Sekhon

06 May 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

 

Complaint No. :       29 of 2018

Date of Institution:     6.03.2018

Date of Decision :      6.05.2019

 

Sarwan Singh alias Pappi son of Bhagwan Singh resident of Back side Quila Mubarak, Mohalla Khokhran, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Near Bus Stand, Talwandi Road, Zira, District Ferozepur.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regd & Head Office 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014, through its Managing Director.

.....OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

               Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh  A S Sekhon, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Ashok Monga, Ld Counsel for OPs,

 

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim on account of theft of his car and for further directing OPs to pay

                                          cc no.29 of 2018

Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

2                                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased car bearing Registration No PB 04Q-2044 from Hans Raj of Faridkot and got transferred the ownership of car in his own name, but insurance policy of vehicle in question was yet to be transferred in the name of complainant.  Insurance policy bearing no.20123311SP111239884 was valid for the period from 26.12.2015 to 25.12.2016. it is submitted that during the subsistence of policy period on 23.07.2016, when complainant was going on some unknown persons gave signal for stopping the car and forcibly entered the car and snatched keys of car. They took the car to Pakhi Kalan Road and from there to village Kabbarwachha and then one of the assailants forcibly took purse of complainant containing money and driving license and his Nokia mobile and then pushed him out of car. Thereafter, brother of complainant took him to Faridkot and then, they got recorded FIR No.165 dated 24.07.2016 under Section 382/34 IPC at Police Station, City Faridkot. Complainant also gave intimation regarding theft to OP-1 in written. Police could not trace his car and as per report given by National Crime Branch Bureau, status of car of complainant is stolen. Complainant lodged claim with OPs and submitted all the requisite documents with them but despite completion of all formalities and submission of requisite documents, OPs have not done anything needful. He approached OPs several times and made requests to them to pass his

                                       cc no.29 of 2018

genuine insurance claim but all in vain. It amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for directions to OPs to pay compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                             The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 7.03.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, OPs filed written statement taking preliminary objections that no cause of action arises against them as complainant did not inform them regarding any theft of his car. He never submitted any documents with them and it is barred in view of terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question. It involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring voluminous evidence which is not possible in summary proceedings of this Forum. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum that he was using this car as taxi.  Complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and premature and his is not their consumer. There is no deficiency in service on their part. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that car of complainant was insured with them under policy in question and said policy was purchased by Hans Raj. It is averred that no

                                       cc no.29 of 2018

intimation regarding sale of said car was ever given to them by insured Hans Raj and this fact is clear from notice dated 13.11.2017. they have asserted that complainant is not their consumer and there is no privity of contract between complainant and OPs. It is further averred that even no intimation regarding theft of said car was ever given to them on 23.07.2016. OPs came to know about alleged theft on receipt of notice dated 13.11.2017 and by that date, policy in question was expired on 25.12.2016. ld counsel for OPs brought before the Forum that perusal of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., it is clear that said car was being used by complainant as taxi and it was in violation of terms and conditions of policy. Ops have sternly denied that complainant ever approached them and gave intimation regarding said theft to them. It is also denied that complainant ever submitted any documents for processing his claim with them. it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                              Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-8 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of R N Bansal as Ex OP-1 and document Ex OP-2 and then, closed the evidence.

                                       cc no.29 of 2018

7                                    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

8                                            From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that he purchased car in question from one Hans Raj and got transferred the same in his name. Insurance Policy for car was purchased by said Hans Raj and it was not got transferred by complainant in his name. Grievance of the complainant is that during the subsistence of policy in question, his car was stolen by some one and Police could not trace the same. Complainant got recorded FIR to this effect and also informed OPs regarding theft of his car, but despite completion of all formalities and submission of requisite documents, Ops have not passed genuine insurance claim on account of theft of his car. In reply, OPs have sternly denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that insurance policy in question was purchased by Hans Raj and he never informed them about selling of said car.  Moreover, complainant never approached them nor submitted any documents regarding theft of his car to them and complaint filed by complainant is premature. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

                                       cc no.29 of 2018

9                                           Ld Counsel for Ops have brought our attention to copy of Insurance Policy Ex OP-2, bare perusal of which reveals that insurance policy in question under which complainant is seeking relief and claim from OPs is not in the name of complainant. on the face of it, it is clear that Insurance Policy in question is in the name of one Hans Raj and complainant has no right to file the present complaint. Policy document is self explanatory and requires no justification to prove that complainant is not the consumer of OPs. Moreover, complainant has failed to prove before the Forum through any documentary evidence that he gave due intimation regarding theft of said car to OPs immediately after occurrence of theft. Legal notice issued by complainant to Ops seeking passing of his insurance claim through his counsel is dated 13.11.2017 but he has not placed on record any document to show that he gave intimation to OPs regarding theft of his car. Car was stolen on 23.07.2016 but he did not inform them regarding this theft immediately after occurrence of theft on 23.07.2016 or after reporting the matter to Police. In the absence of any intimation or knowledge to OPs, claim sought by complainant could not be passed. Instead of immediately informing OPs in proper manner, complainant directly issued legal notice to them on 13.11.2017 which is not appropriate.

10                                                          From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that complainant did not give intimation regarding theft of his car to OPs and it is in

                                       cc no.29 of 2018

violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency in service on their part.  Complainant has failed to prove his case. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 6.05.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)   

                                      Member                         President