Haryana

Karnal

CC/67/2015

Dhiraj Kumar S/o Dev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                 Complaint No. 67 of 2015

                                                               Date of instt. 09.04.2015

                                                               Date of decision: 21.07.2016

 

Dhiraj Kumar son of Shri Dev Singh resident of House no.296/7, Gandhi Nagar, Karnal

                  

                                                                             ………….Complainant.       

                                                         Versus

 

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch office at SCO no.19-20, Part-I, sector-12, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                          

                                                                            ………..Opposite Party.

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present       Shri Amardeep Singh Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Y.P. Arora Advocate for opposite party.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he got insured his motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05V-3304 from opposite party, vide policy no.80981029 valid from 16.8.2012 to 15.8.2013, for insured value of Rs.25000/-. On 5.4.2013 at about 4.30 p.m. he parked his motorcycle outside his house by locking the same, but when after sometime he came out of the house, he found that the motorcycle was stolen. A case bearing First Information Report no.34 dated 6.4.2013 was got registered in Police Station City Karnal regarding the said theft. Intimation to the opposite party was given immediately. The opposite party got signed some papers from him and assured that the amount of compensation would be paid very soon. The opposite party also got investigated the matter from the HAWK’S EYE. The said investigating agency also obtained certain papers from him. However, the opposite party postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. He was called to submit untraced report of the police, vide letter dated 28.4.2014. He submitted the said report on 21.11.2014. Despite completing all the formalities and repeated requests, the opposite party did not pay compensation which amounted to unfair trade practice, due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite party, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the compliant; that the complainant is estopped by his own acts and conduct from filing the complaint and that the complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this forum in summary manner.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that opposite party asked the complainant vide letters dated 21.11.2013, 28.12.2013 and 10.1.2014 to submit order of the court accepting final report U/S 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, record copy of letter to RTA to keep the vehicle particulars in safe custody and the original insurance policy/cover note, but he did not submit the said documents. Therefore, his claim was closed as ‘No Claim’. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to C8 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Sanket Gupta  Ex.O1 has been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances  of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                From the facts and circumstances and evidence on record it emerges that the complainant got insured his motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05V-3304 from opposite party and the said motorcycle was stolen on 5.4.2013 during subsistence of the insurance policy. First Information Report no.34 dated 6.4.2014 was registered in Police Station Karnal regarding the said theft. The opposite party made the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’ on the ground that he did not submit the required documents.

7.                The complainant has produced the copy of First Information Report Ex.C3, copy of the untraced report submitted by the police Ex.C4, copy of the order dated 15.11.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Karnal accepting t he untraced report submitted by the police Ex.C5 and copy of the statement of the complainant being satisfied with the untraced report of the police Ex.C6. A perusal of Ex.C7 shows that HAWK’s EYE Investigating Agency appointed by the opposite party had received the copy of First Information Report, photo copy of registration certificate, two keys, copy of driving licence of complainant and copy of the PAN Card of the complainant. There could be no question of producing the copies of the untraced report submitted by the police and the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepting such report by the complainant. The claim of the complainant could not be made as ‘No Claim’ for non-production of the copy of the insurance policy, because the record regarding the policy must be in possession of the opposite party also and the same could very well be verified from the record. However, the complainant has produced the copy of the insurance policy Ex.C2. Keeping in view such facts and circumstances, the plea raised by the opposite party cannot be accepted that the complainant had not produced the required documents. Therefore, making the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’ without any cogent reason certainly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- as insured amount to the complainant  alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 21.07.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member