BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, HISAR
Consumer Complaint no. 572 of 2012
Date of Institution : 17.12.2012 Date of decision : 05.03.2015
Pawan Kumar son of Shri Tej Bhan, R/o H.No.6, Bank Colony, Hisar Tehsil and District Hisar.
....Complainant
Versus
Future General India Insurance Company Ltd.,SCO No.143, Red Square Market near Palki Hotel, Hisar through its Branch Manager.
….Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI VINOD JAIN, PRESIDENT.
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ashok Garg, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Parveer Arya counsel for the opposite party.
ORDER
Undisputedly, complainant-Pawan Kumar is registered owner of Pick up Jeep, bearing registration No.HR-39A/9359, which was duly insured with Future General India Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. with the opposite party, for the period from 09.07.2010 to 08.07.2011, for insured amount of Rs.2,20,000/-. During the nights of 11th /12th of Feb.2011, it was stolen, when it was parked in the street in Vikas Nagar, Hisar. For it, FIR No.138 dated 12.02.2011 was got registered in Police Station , City Hisar, for offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC against unknown person. Complainant also lodged his insurance claim, with the insurance company, but it was not settled. Later on, police also submitted its untraced report dated 14.5.2011 which was accepted by the Illaqua Magistrate. Earlier, the complainant, had filed consumer complaint No.445 dated 19.10.2011, before this forum, which was allowed, vide order of Ld. Predecessor’s dated 27.2.2012, with a direction to the complainant, to submit the documents to the Insurance Company, as per its letter dated 22.1.2011 and that in case, he is not in a position to do so then to give sufficient explanation for it. The Insurance company was also directed to settle the claim of the complainant, within two months. In compliance thereof the complainant, allegedly sent, all the required documents to the opposite party including police untraced report and order of learned CJM,Hisar to accept it. But still this claim is not settled; hence this complaint, filed on 14.12.2012, for a direction to the opposite party, for payment of insured amount of Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant, with up to date interest, besides damages for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party has filed its reply and has contested the complaint; interalia pleading that it has also sent letter dated 5.4.2012 to the complainant, at his address, mentioned in his complaint, demanding required documents, but said letter was received back, with the remarks of incomplete address and therefore, in the circumstances, opposite party could not process the claim of the complainant.
3. Both the parties to the complaint, have placed on record copies of various documents, which are not disputed or denied. It is only to prove above noted undisputed case of both the parties to this complaint.
4. As per the case of the complainant, he has already, sent all the required documents, to the opposite party, and has complied the order of this forum dated 27.2.2012, but still the opposite party did not settle his claim which is gross deficiency of service on its part.
5. In this regard, opposite party denied to receive the compliance and so at the instance of the complainant, concerned official of the opposite party, was summoned, with the claim file of the case in hand and therefrom, he placed on record, photo copy of all the relevant documents therein. There from it is very clear that the Insurance company is not settling the genuine claim of the complainant, for no justifiable reason, and so this complaint deserves acceptance.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party, has, first of all, contended that this new consumer complaint, is not maintainable , as the complainant should have filed execution of said previous order of this forum dated 27.2.2012. We do not find any merit in this contention. Strict provisions of code of civil procedure are not applicable in these summary proceedings, therefore it hardly matters, whether the complainant, files execution/petition of that order or file fresh consumer complaint. Even this consumer complaint, can be treated as execution petition of said previous order of this forum dated 27.2.2012.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party now contends that after passing of said previous order of this forum dated 27.2.2012, opposite party has sent letter its dated 5.4.2012(Ex.R-1) to the complainant, on his address, mentioned in the complaint, asking relevant documents, but the same was received back with the report of incorrect address. That letter of the opposite party dated 5.4.2012(Ex.R-1) is almost the same which was dated 22.6.2011 mentioned in the order of the forum and so there is none compliance on the part of the complaint. We do not find any merit in this contention. This subsequent letter dated 5.4.2011( Ex.R-1), of the opposite party is not the same, which is mentioned in the order of the forum. In this new letter, opposite party is demanding some more documents, which were even mentioned in said letter dated 22.6.2011. In this regard, it is note worthy that now vide letter dated 22.6.2011, opposite party is demanding second original key of the vehicle, which was not demanded, in letter dated 22.6.2011Therein copy of RC was demanded, but now original RC is being demanded. Moreover sending this subsequent letter dated 5.4.2012, was totally unwarranted, as it was not permitted or required by this forum vide said order dated 27.2.2012. Further, even this subsequent letter, remained with the opposite party, It was never received by the complainant, allegedly for want of correct address. Therefore, on the basis of this letter, opposite party cannot say that there is non compliance on the part of the complainant.
8. Now, on the point of compliance of the order, on the part of the complaint, is concerned, it is note worthy that even subrogation letter, indemnity bond, various RTO forms No.26,28,29 and 30, are being sought from him, well prior to even offering the amount of settlement of this claim, which is not legally permissible. Insurance company cannot claim, these documents, duly signed by the complainant, in advance, for having received the claim, without infact getting anything. These can be claimed only after offering and payment of claim. Prevailing procedure, to the contrary, if any, is not legal.
9. Now on merits, perusal of record shows, that vide said letter dated 22.6.2011, many documents were sought from the complainant, but vide subsequent letter dated 15.3.2011(Ex.C-5), demand of only four documents remained; meaning thereby that all other documents, earlier sought, were either already received or were not required. Those four requirements, which remained to comply with, were as under :-
- “Latest service record of Pick-up or tell us name and address of workshop from where Pick-up was serviced in routine.
- NOC from financer.
- Copy of letter written to registration authority about theft of Pick-up.
- Copy of resident proof, Ration card, voter card etc.”
10. Perusal of record shows that its compliance was made or reasonable explanations was there. Ex.C-4 is the copy of registration certificate, of the vehicle showing cancelation of the hypothecation of the vehicle which was with Union Bank of India. Therefore in the circumstances, NOC, from the financer, was not required. Record shows that investigator of the opposite party, was very frequently visiting the house of the complainant, including to record his statement. Therefore copy of residence proof, voter card etc. was not required. Otherwise also, it has nothing to do, to settle the claim. Further complainant had written letters to the different authorities, about the theft of the pick up. In this regard Ex.C-6 is copy of his letter dated 28.3.2011, written to Assistant Director(R&Ops) National Crime Record Bureau, New Delhi. Regular FIR was already registered, for the theft of this vehicle. The police had also submitted its final un trace report. As per investigator report, and also as per the statement of the complainant, recorded by him, all the original documents were also stolen, with the vehicle itself. Therefore, to our mind, there is nothing material, for went of which, genuine claim of the complainant, either cannot be settled or can be repudiated. In this regard it is also note worthy that even as per investigation report (Ex.C-7) dated 16.4.2011, of the opposite party, it is a genuine claim case of the complainant. Therefore, it is very clear that non settling, the genuine claim of the complainant, is totally unjustified. It is certainly deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
11. It is a matter of common knowledge that generally insurance companies at the time of settling even genuine claim, do raise every sort of filmsy grounds. It is reprehensible practice.
12. Now on the point of quantum of claim, undisputedly, which is also so evident from the statement of the complainant, recorded by the investigator and from investigation report Ex.C-7 dated 16.4.2011, that the complainant had agreed, for settlement of his claim for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas the vehicle was insured for Rs.2,20,000/-. We also find this amount as just and reasonable, because insurance was for the period from 09.07.2010 to 08.07.2011 and theft is dated 11/12.2.2011. Sufficient insurance period had already been elapsed before the theft. Therefore complainant is entitled for insurance claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, which have been wrongfully with held.
13. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite party, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of theft i.e. 12.2.2011, till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- for his harassment, mental tension etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- against the opposite party.
Announced.
Dated:05.03.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Hisar.
Member/05.03.2015
