BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.35/15.

Date of instt.: 25.02.2015. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 04.04.2016.

Rajpal S/o Birbal, age 30 years, R/o Village Kurar, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.     

                                        Versus

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1012/11, Opp. Indira Gandhi Public School, Dhand Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Naranjan Dhull, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. A.K.Khurania, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he got insured his vehicle motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR-08L-5394 with the Op vide policy bearing cover note No.71248255 valid w.e.f. 05.11.2010 to 04.11.2011.  It is alleged that the above-said motor-cycle was stolen on 11.07.2011 from the area of Ashoka Garden Colony, Kaithal.  It is further alleged that the complainant got lodged the FIR bearing No.178 dt. 11.07.2011 in P.S. Civil Line, Kaithal.  Information regarding the stolen of motor-cycle was also given to the Op on the same day.  It is further alleged that the police has not traced the above-said vehicle and submitted untraced report in the court of Madam Taranjit Kaur, ld. C.J.M. Kaithal and this Court vide order dt. 08.01.2015 has accepted the said untraced report.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op repudiated the claim of complainant on 02.02.2015.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that as per the claim withdrawal letter of complainant and as per the investigator’s report, the lost/stolen vehicle bearing registration No.HR-08L-5394 having engine No.06429 and chassis No.04850 relating to FIR No.178 dt. 11.07.2011 of P.S. Civil Line, Kaithal was recovered on 10.08.2011 by P.S. G.R.P., Kurukshetra and he has received information through P.S. Civil Line, Kaithal.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     The evidence of both the parties was not produced despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of both the parties was closed vide court order dt. 03.03.2016.  

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.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the complainant got insured his vehicle motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR-08L-5394 with the Op vide policy bearing cover note No.71248255 valid w.e.f. 05.11.2010 to 04.11.2011.  He further argued that the above-said motor-cycle was stolen on 11.07.2011 from the area of Ashoka Garden Colony, Kaithal.  He further argued that an FIR bearing No.178 dt. 11.07.2011 was got lodged in P.S. Civil Line, Kaithal.  He further argued that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op but the Op did not settle the claim of complainant.  On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint.  He argued that as per the investigator’s report, the lost/stolen vehicle bearing registration No.HR-08L-5394 having engine No.06429 and chassis No.04850 relating to FIR No.178 dt. 11.07.2011 of P.S. Civil Line, Kaithal was recovered on 10.08.2011 by P.S. G.R.P., Kurukshetra and he has received information through P.S. Civil Line, Kaithal.  At the time of arguments, the Op has placed on file copy of Claim Scrutiny Sheet for Theft Claims, copy of investigation report and Copy of withdrawal letter.  He further argued that the complainant has withdrawn the insurance claim for the theft of motor-cycle in question. 

6.     On appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties and documentary evidence available on the file, we found that in the copy of Claim Scrutiny Sheet for Theft Claims, it is reported in the column of description of loss that “Vehicle Recovered”.  In the investigation report dt. 08.09.2011 given by Er. Sachin Gulati, it has been mentioned by him as under:-

RECOVERY ASPECT

        “It has been reported that, said motor-cycle has been recovered on 10.08.2011 by Govt. Railway Police Kurukshetra”.

Moreover, the complainant had submitted claim withdrawal letter to the Ops whereby he had given consent for withdrawal of theft claim.  The complainant has also put his signatures on the said claim withdrawal letter.  So, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and we hereby dismiss the same.  No order as to costs.  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.04.04.2016.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.