Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/479/2014

Nilesh Sharma s/o Sh.Mohan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harinder Kumar

31 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                                Complaint No. 479 of 2014.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 14.11.2014

                                                                                                Date of decision: 31.05.2017.

Nilesh Sharma aged about 27 years son of Shri Mohan Lal resident of Village & P.O. Buria, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. IFFCO HOUSE, 3^rd Floor, 34,Nehru Place, New Delhi through its Branch Manager.

         Sachin Gulati near Aasma Sweet House, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                                             …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Harinder Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

               Sh. Ajay Shakti Goel, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.   

 

ORDER   (ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1.                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 amended up to date, against the respondents (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs).  

2,                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant was registered owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-02AA-5873 which was duly insured with the Op No.1 Insurance Company vide insurance policy bearing No. 80837796 valid from 31.07.2012 to30.07.2013 for a sum of Rs. 45,000/-. Unfortunately, on 10.03.2014, the motorcycle of the complainant was stolen by someone when it was parked outside of his house. Regarding this, the complainant lodged an FIR bearing No. 31 dated10.03.2013 under section 379 IPC with the police station Buria. After that complainant informed the OPs Insurance Company and lodged the claim for reimbursement of the insured amount. Accordingly, a claim was lodged vide claim No. 33500530 and completed all the formalities except untrace report/ report under section 173 Cr.P.C. and thereafter an investigator Sh. Sachin Gulati was deputed who submitted his report with the OP No.1 Insurance Company. After that, complainant visited so many times to the office of the Ops but the OPs linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for directing the OP No.1 Insurance Company to pay the insured amount alongwith interest on account of theft of motorcycle in question and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP  No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complaint is pre-mature because the complainant did not complete the necessary and desired formalities for settlement of the claim; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. In this case an intimation was received by the Op No.1 Insurance Company about theft of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02AA-5873 Modal No. 2012 of the complainant which was insured w.e.f. 31.07.2012 to 30.07.2013 for an IDV of Rs. 45,000/- vide insurance policy bearing No. 80837796. On receipt of the intimation, the OP No.1 Insurance Company desired the complainant to submit necessary and desired documents including claim form, original insurance, FIR, letter to RTA regarding theft of motorcycle, both original keys and untrace report. Reminders in this regard were sent to the complainant on 29.06.2013, 25.07.2013 and 19.08.2013 but the complainant did not complete the formalities and finding no alternative vide letter dated 15.10.2013 claim file of the complainant was closed as “NO CLAIM” and on merit all the contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 Insurance Company.

4.                     OP No.2 filed his written statement in the shape of affidavit by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable qua OP No.1; there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and is trying to mislead this Forum by not stating true facts. The true facts are that the Op No.2 has no role and has been illegally impleaded to harass him as Op No.2 has only submitted the investigation report without prejudice in regard to the claim of the complainant and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of FIR as Annexure C-1, Letter for submitting the requisite documents dated 14.03.2013 as Annexure C-2, Letter dated 19.08.2013 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of application with postal receipt for sending untrace report dated 29.08.2013 as Annexure C-4, Copy of repudiation letter dated 15.10.2013 as Annexure C-5, Certified copy of untrace report issued by the police of P.S. Yamuna Nagar as well as accepted by the Hon’ble JMIC, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure C-6 to C-8, Copy of legal notice as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of RC as Annexure C-10, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanket Gupta, Vice President IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. ltd. as Annexure R1/A and documents such as photo copies of letters dated 29.06.2013, 25.07.2013, 19.08.2013 and 15.10.2013 as Annexure R-1 to R-4, Copy of insurance policy and terms and conditions as Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     OP No. 2 failed to adduce any evidence despite availing so many opportunities, hence evidence of OP No.2 is hereby closed by court order today i.e. on 31.05.2017.

8                      We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the motorcycle in question, particular of the insurance, lodging the FIR and lodging the claim with the OP No.1 Insurance Company as all these facts are duly proved from the documents placed on file i.e. RC Annexure C-10, Copy of FIR Annexure C-1 and Insurance Policy Annexure C-11.

10.                   The only version of the OP No.1 Insurance Company is that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated as “NO CLAIM” vide its letter dated 15.10.2013 Annexure C-5/R-4 as the complainant failed to submit the original court accepted untrace report/ report under section 173 Cr.P.C. despite so many letters but this plea of the OP No.1 Insurance Company is not tenable as from the perusal of certified copies of untrace report issued by the Hon’ble Court of JMIC, Yamuna Nagar on dated 06.03.2014 Annexure C-8 and report under section 173 Cr.P.C. prepared by the S.P. Annexure C-6, it is duly evident that the Hon’ble Court of JMIC, Yamuna Nagar has accepted the untrace report submitted by the police of P.S. Yamuna Nagar on 16.03.2014 and the same has been submitted to the OP No.1 Insurance Company but despite that the OP No.1 Insurance Company has not released the sum insured on account of theft of motorcycle in question to the complainant and under the compelling circumstances complainant was forced to file the present complaint on 14.11.2014. Even after appearing in this case on 22.05.2015, the OP No.1 Insurance Company has not bothered to release the sum insured on account of theft of motorcycle in question despite that the complainant has placed on file untrace report issued by the competent court of law alongwith his complaint. Further, from the perusal of legal notice issued by the counsel for the complainant on dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure    C-9), it is duly evident that counsel for the complainant sent the untrace report issued by the competent court of law alongwith his notice but despite that OP No.1 Insurance Company failed to release the payment to the complainant which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 Insurance Company.

11.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that when the complainant has already submitted untrace report accepted by the competent court of law and there was no other violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant then withholding the genuine claim of the complainant by the OP No.1 Insurance Company constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 Insurance Company.

12.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP No.1 Insurance Company to pay a sum insured of Rs. 45,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.31.05.2017.

                                                                                         (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                         PRESIDENT

                                                                                         DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR.

 

 

 

                        (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)              (S.C.SHARMA)

                         MEMBER                                               MEMBER