BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.256/14.
Date of instt.: 08.12.2014.
Date of Decision: 21.03.2016.
Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Ranjit Lal, r/o House No.1414, Aggarsain Puram, Ambala Road, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Limited, IFFCO HOUSE, 3rd Floor, 34 Nehru Palace, New Delhi-110019 through its Director.
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Limited Opposite Indira Gandhi, Senior Secondary School, Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. G.C.Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his motor-cycle bearing No.HR08G/5489 with the Ops vide policy No.83536004. It is alleged that the above-said motor-cycle was stolen on 06.06.2013 and an FIR was got lodged in P.S.Kaithal vide FIR No.159 dt. 14.06.2013. It is alleged that the complainant lodged the clam with the Ops and submitted all the necessary documents. It is further alleged that the Ops settled the claim of Rs.14,300/- vide claim No.35574592 vide letter dt. 03.04.2014. It is further alleged that the Ops have not reimbursed the amount of Rs.14,300/- to the complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the claim was examined by the answering Ops and approved for Rs.14,300/- as per consent of the complainant, subject to furnishing of letter of subrogation, original transferred RC in the name of ITGI and original discharge voucher executed by the complainant. The answering Op company served letter dt. 03.04.2014 upon the complainant but the complainant failed to provide registration certificate duly transferred in favour of Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. as the same is required for disbursing the settled claim. The answering Op company served letters dt. 22.08.2014, 23.09.2014 and 24.11.2014 upon the complainant in this regard and as the complainant did not provide the required documents, as such, the claim was closed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and Mark-A and closed evidence on 27.11.2015. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence documents Mark R1 to Mark R6 and closed evidence on 04.02.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings, evidence available on the file and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant got insured his motor-cycle bearing No.HR08G/5489 with the Ops vide policy No.83536004. It is also not disputed that the said motor-cycle was stolen on 06.06.2013 and an FIR No.159 dt. 14.06.2013 was got lodged at Police Station, Kaithal. As per pleadings of complainant, the Ops have settled the claim of Rs.14,300/- but the said amount has not been reimbursed to the complainant. On the other hand, the Ops contended that the complainant did not furnish the letter of subrogation, original transferred RC and original discharge voucher executed by the complainant. The Ops also served letters dt. 22.08.2014, 23.09.2014 and 24.11.2014 upon the complainant in this regard but the complainant did not provide the required documents. The Ops have placed the copy of said letters Mark R4 to R6 on the file. On perusal of all the record available on the file, we found that the claim of complainant was settled by the Ops for a sum of Rs.14,300/- but the Ops did not reimburse the said amount to the complainant because he did not submit the documents, as required by the Ops.
6. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.14,300/- to the complainant, subject to furnishing of subrogation letter, transfer the ownership of motor-cycle in the name of Ops and other documents as required by the Ops. Thereafter, the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of submission of subrogation letter, transfer of ownership and other documents by the complainant with the Ops, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of this order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.21.03.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
