DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 590 of 2011. Date of Institution: 02.11.2011 Date of Decision: 10.09.2015
Desh Raj s/o Sh. Amar Singh s/o Sh. Girdhari, R/o H.No.2, Village Hariyahera, P.O. Ghamroaj, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon.
……Complainant.
Versus
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd, Corporate Office: 4th & 5th Floor, IFFCO Tower, Plot No.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon through its Divisional Manager.
..Opposite party
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Paras Ram Yadav, Adv for the complainant
Sh.Deepak Gupta, Adv for the opposite party.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he got his JCB Machine bearing Regd. No.HR-55-E-1185 insured with the opposite party vide Cover Note No.40989013 with IDV of Rs.14,50,000/- which was valid w.e.f. 17.03.2010 to 16.03.2011 (Ex.C-6). On 30.09.2010 the said JCB machine was stolen by some unknown person behind Community Centre, Sector 22, Molahera. He lodged FIR No.330 dated 01.10.2010 u/s 379 IPC with P.S. Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. The police also filed Untrace Report regarding the vehicle in question. The complainant submitted the claim form with the OP after completing all the required formalities but the opposite party failed to reimburse his claim. Thus, the opposite party was deficient in providing services to the complainant. He prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay the insured amount with interest and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2 The opposite party in its written reply has alleged that the complainant himself has not cooperated with the independent surveyor Mr. Sonu Bhola who has been deputed to verify the facts in respect of alleged theft of the vehicle. The complainant has not furnished the requisite documents i.e. FIR issued by police, current and previous insurance policies, original RC, acknowledgment theft intimation letter to registration authority, vehicle particular issued by registration authority, copy of driving licence of Mr. Harun, original purchase invoice, last service bill of vehicle, all original keys of the vehicle, loan account statement from the financer, final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. issued by police and duly certified by the court, Last G.R. (Builty), Last Kanta Parchi, National Permit “A” & “B” authorization for National Permit, PCR confirmation from police, last duty slip, photocopy of Voter I card/passport and signed claim form, Login book main. These documents are very much necessary but the complainant has not furnished these documents and in this regard letter was sent on 19.03.2010 and subsequent reminder by investigator dated 21.06.2011 and final reminder letter dated 28.06.2010. Thus, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency of service on its part on the ground that he got his JCB Machine bearing Regd. No.HR-55-E-1185 insured with the opposite party vide Cover Note No.40989013 with IDV of Rs.14,50,000/- which was valid w.e.f. 17.03.2010 to 16.03.2011 (Ex.C-6). On 30.09.2010 the said JCB machine was stolen by some unknown person in the area of Community Centre, Sector 22, Molahera. He lodged FIR No.330 dated 01.10.2010 u/s 379 IPC with P.S. Palam Vihar, Gurgaon. Police failed to trace the vehicle and thus, filed Final Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. The complainant also intimated the OP regarding the theft. He submitted the claim form with relevant documents but opposite party failed to settle his claim.
5 However, the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not submitted the documents as mentioned in the written reply and thus, the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint as the claim has not been repudiated by the insurance company.
6 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence placed on file it is evident that there is nothing on the file in order to infer that the complainant has submitted the claim form with the opposite party with requisite documents. In absence of the same the opposite party failed to process the claim of the complainant and thus, complaint is premature in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP No. 580 of 2006 decided on 15.04.2010 titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs M/s Pragathi Construction Thus, we direct the complainant to lodge the claim with the opposite party with all the relevant documents within 15 days and after submission of the documents by the complainant, the opposite party shall process the claim of the complainant within 45 days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the decision taken by the insurer the complainant shall be at liberty to approach before this Forum for redressal of his grievances. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
10.09.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
