ORDER

(Passed on  27/09 /2018)

PER SHRI.ATUL D.ALSI, PRESIDENT.

Being aggrieved by the repudiation of vehicle insurace claim of the complainant by the OP the complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 claiming Insurance Claim amount of Rs.24,750/- alongwith interest @ 9% and further claiming compensation towards mental torture and cost of proceeding  amounting to Rs.45,000/.

2.       The facts in short giving rise to this petition are that the complainant is in the service Crime Guard Security Services, District Chandrapur and is working as the Manager. A vehicle Hero Honda Splender Plus bearing registration No.MH-31, DJ 2463 was purchased by his employer company for his official work. The said vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party for the period between 26/09/2014 to 25/9/2015 vide insurance policy No.89145936 against insured’s declared value (I.D.Value) of Rs.24,750/-. On 25/8/2015, when the said vehicle was parked in the parking place at Golden Plaza, Chandrapur, the vehicle was stolen by unidentified persons. The complainant lodged complaint at Police Station, Ramnagar and the FIR came to be registered against unknown persons vide Crime No.421/15 U/s 379 of IPC. The intimation of the theft was given to the OP Insurance company. The complainant filed insurance claim with the OP along with requisite documents. The complainant submitted all the documents as and when demanded by the OP vide letters dated 14/12/2015, 6/1/2016, 25/2/2016 and 31/5/2016 issued by the OP. The complainant submitted in his petition that though the complainant submitted all the requisite documents, the OP failed to adjudicate the insurance claim. Therefore it amounts to deficiency in service for which the petition is filed.

6.       The complaint came to be admitted and notices were served on the OP. The OP filed its reply and thereby denied allegations against it and submitted that the complainant failed to submit mandatory documents necessary for adjudicating his insurance claim though time and again demanded by the OP and hence his claim could not be adjudicated and the same has been repudiated for want of documents. The complainant himself is negligent and he has not submitted mandatory documents. Therefore there is no merits in this case and it deserves to be dismissed with cost.

7.      Counsel for the complainant argued that the complaint is filed as per the authorization given by Crime Guard Security Services by letter dated 10/10/2016 which is filed at Exh.C/5(1). The complainant also filed Insurance policy at Exh. C/5(2), registration certificate of the vehicle at Exh. C/5(3), Copy of FIR at Exh. C/5(4), Legal notice at Exh. C/5(5). He submitted that the complainant has submitted all requisit documents as per letters issued by the OP but for a long period, the OP failed to adjudicate the insurance claim which amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the petition may be allowed. 

9.         Counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant failed to submit mandatory documents as per letters issued by the OP time to time and, therefore, for want of requisit documents, the claim could not be adjudicated and hence the claim is repudiated for want of documents.

10. We have gone through the complaint, written versions filed by OP, affidavit, documents and WNA filed by the parties. We have also heard the oral arguments advanced by parties.

                    Points                                                                                     Finding

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer ?                                      Yes

2.  Whether  there is deficiency in service on the

      part of OP ?                                                                                    No

3.   What order ?                                                                As per final order..

As to Issue No.1

11.      The complainant has filed on record the insurance policy issued by the OP, which, the OP has not denied. Hence it is clear that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1) D and the service as promised, is the services within the meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of CP act. and hence the issue is decided accordingly.

As to Issue No.2

12.        On perusal of the documents, it reveals that the OP vide letters dated 14/12/2015, 6/1/2016,25/2/2016 and 31/5/2016 issued to the complainant, has called upon him to submit mandatory documents which are necessary for adjudicating the insurance claim. The OP has filed copies of all these letters on record.  However the complainant has not filed any reliable evidence to show that he has submitted the requisite documents to the OP. Therefore, repudiation of insurance claim by the OP, for want of documents, does not amount to deficiency in service. Therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.

As to Issue No.3

In view of our observations as above, we are passing the following order..

Final order

1. The Complaint is dismissed.

2. Parties to bear their own cost.

3. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.

(Smt.Kalpana Jangade (Kute)   (Smt.Kirti Vaidya (Gadgil)     (Shri.Atul D.Alsi)

               Member                                       Member                              President