BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 427 of 2014 Date of Institution: 07.11.2014
Date of Decision: 02.07.2015
Neeraj Kumar, Aged about 45 years, Son of Sh. Om Parkash, Resident of Bhateja Street, Near Clock Tower Fazilka, Distt. Fazilka.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Saleem Shah Bazar, Fazilka through its Assistant Branch Manager.
2. Deputy Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office-Bathinda, 2089-D, The Mall, Bathinda-151001.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
C.C. No. 427 of 2014
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Hardeep Bajaj, Advocate.
For opposite parties : Sh. M.L. Chugh, Advocate.
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that after taking loan from Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Branch Bathinda, on 28.1.2011, the complainant had made an insurance of his jeep bearing registration No.PB-05-S-9336 from opposite party No.2 vide policy cover note bearing No.GY31-400910803391. Term of the said insurance policy was from 28.1.2011 to 27.1.2012. The said Jeep was purchased by the complainant on 28.1.2011 for Rs.4,92,100/-, whereas IDV of the same was assed by the
C.C. No. 427 of 2014
opposite parties for Rs.4,67,495/- at the time of making the above said insurance. Further it has been pleaded that in the midnight of 21/22 May, 2011, the above said vehicle was stolen by unknown person. On 22.5.2011, an intimation was given to opposite party No.1. On the same day, an intimation was also given to the Police Station City, Fazilka, but the Illaqua Police registered an F.I.R No.59, U/S 379 of IPC on 26.5.2011, whereas copy of the same was supplied to him by the police in the evening of 27.5.2011. On 28.5.2011 and 29.5.2011, there were holidays being Saturday and Sunday. On 30.5.2011, the complainant had to go out of city due to urgent work and on 31.5.2011 copy of the F.I.R along with copies of the concerned documents were given to opposite party No.1 who forwarded the same to opposite party No.2. Clarification of delay was sought by opposite party No.1 on behalf of opposite party No.2, which was given to opposite party No.1 on 29.8.2011 by the complainant. Opposite party No.2 had sent letter dated 22.2.2012 and 12.6.2012, whereby Insurance Policy, NCRB report, Non traceable report duly issued by the magistrate i.e. u/s 173 from the Court, Registered AD letter issued to DTO regarding theft of Vehicle where from vehicle was registered and Legible copy of RC were sought. Except the
C.C. No. 427 of 2014
said letters and reply dated 30.8.2012 under the RTI Act, no other letter was sent by the opposite parties. Copy of insurance policy cover note, NCRB report, legible copy of RC and a copy of letter sent to DTO were given to opposite party No.1, who sent the same to opposite party No.2. Non-traceable report duly issued by the Magistrate was given to opposite party No.1 on 6.10.2012 and certified copy of the same was received to him from the court on 6.10.2012. Ultimately the complainant had to seek an information from opposite party No.2 through application dated 17.8.2012, whereupon copy of letter dated 30.8.2012 was sent to him by the opposite party. Then the complainant again provided the required documents except report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. of the court. Non-traceable report duly issued by the Magistrate was given to opposite party No.1 on 6.10.2012. Thereafter, in the third week of May 2013, the opposite parties had sought an affidavit duly attested by the Notary Public upon a stamp paper in support of his claim and accordingly on 28.5.2013, the complainant had given a duly attested affidavit 28.5.2013 to opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1. The opposite parties assured that the amount of claim will be paid to him, but thereafter the opposite parties were putting of the
C.C. No. 427 of 2014
matter on one pretext or the other. On 22.8.2014, the complainant sent an application dated 16.8.2014 under the RTI Act seeking information to the effect that as to whether his claim has been rejected or not and for supply of attested copy of his complete claim file in legible condition. Opposite party No.2 sent partly information alleging 111 pages to the complainant wherein page No.110 was missing and copy of affidavit dated 28.5.2013 and letter sent to DTO were missing. The said documents under the RTI Act were sent to the complainant on 17.10.2014 by registered post, which was received by him on 21.10.2014. It has been alleged in page No.108 of the provided information i.e. in the alleged letter dated 27.9.2012 that the claim of the complainant has been closed as No Claim. The said letter was never sent/supplied to the complainant nor earlier the said letter was in his knowledge. It seems that the said letter had been prepared in back date after receiving his RTI application dated 16.8.2014. Moreover, it was clear cut finding of “The Royal Associates, investing and detective Agency/investigator” of the opposite parties that time, date and place of theft i.e. theft was genuine vide report dated 14.2.2012. but the opposite parties have opted different technical tactics to linger on and to
C.C. No. 427 of 2014
ignore/reject his claim. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,92,100/- with interest at the rate of 2% per month from the date of theft till realization and also to pay an amount of Rs.1 lac as compensation and Rs.5500/- as costs.
- Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on account of non-cooperation shown by the complainant as the complainant did not send the required documents up to 15.9.2012 despite letters and reminders. The claim of the complainant was thus filed as “No Claim” vide letter dated 27.9.2012 and the complainant was informed accordingly. Insurance is a bilateral contract and both the parties to the contract are bound by its terms and conditions. So the claim has been filed as “No Claim”. The claim of the complainant was filed as “No Claim” on 27.9.2012, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 4.11.2014. The complaint is time barred. The complainant was bound to inform the insurance company immediately on occurrence of the theft, so as
C.C. No. 427 of 2014
to enable the insurance company to get the claim investigated as soon as possible. However, F.I.R dated 26.5.2011 was supplied to the insurance company on 31.5.2011. There was undue delay in lodging the F.I.R as well as for giving the information to the opposite parties. Clarification for delay was sought by the opposite parties vide letter dated 24.8.2011, but the reply submitted by the insured was not proper and satisfactory. The company had appointed investigator namely Royal Associates to investigate the theft claim. The report of the investigator is recommendatory in nature and not binding on the insurance companies and was admissible subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Even the Royal Associates, Investigator, sought information/documents from the complainant vide letters dated 17.9.2011 and 20.12.2011, but the complainant failed to supply the documents. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-63 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence Ex. OP-1&2/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
C.C. No. 427 of 2014
4. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the file.
5. It is the admitted case of the parties that one Jeep of the complainant make Mahindera Max Pickup bearing Registration No.PB-05-S-9336 was insured with opposite party No.2. The grievance of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the said Jeep was stolen by some unknown persons and the complainant lodged claim in this regard with the opposite parties, but the opposite parties have not settled his claim so far despite completion of all the required formalities. The opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant did not send the required documents upto 15.9.2012 despite letters and reminders and as such the claim of the complainant has been filed as No Claim vide letter dated 27.9.2012 and the complainant was informed accordingly. The complainant has specifically denied having receipt of letter dated 27.9.2012 and has pleaded that he has come to know about the alleged repudiation of his claim only on receipt of information under the RTI Act from the opposite parties on 21.10.2014. Copy of letter dated 27.9.2012, received by the
C.C. No. 427 of 2014
complainant through RTI Act, has been placed on the by the complainant as Ex.C-7, which has been shown to be sent by the opposite parties to the complainant through registered A.D. post, but no copy of despatch register or postal receipt has been supplied by the opposite parties to prove that this letter was actually sent/delivered by them to the complainant. Copy of letter dated 30.8.2012 has also been placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-9 vide which the opposite parties had sought the following documents from the complainant up to 15.9.2012 for settlement of the claim:-
(a) Original Insurance Policy
(b) Latest NCRB Report
(c) Non Traceable Report U/S 173 from court
(d) Legible copy RC Book
(e) Regd. Letter to DTO concerned regarding theft of vehicle where the vehicle was got registered.
A perusal of copy of Untraced Report U/S 379 IPC Ex.C-6 reveals that this Untraced Report in respect of the vehicle in question was issued by the Court of Sh. Sumit Ghai, Sub Divn. Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka vide order dated 4.10.2012 and its copy of was supplied to the complainant on
C.C. No. 427 of 2014
6.10.2012. Therefore, the complainant was unable to submit this Untraced Report to the opposite parties by 15.9.2012, as requisitioned vide letter dated 30.8.2012 Ex.C-9 by the opposite parties. As per the instructions issued by the IRDA vide Circular No.IRDA/Health/Misc./Cir/216/09/2011 dated 20.9.2011, the insurer must not repudiate the claim unless and until the reasons for delay are specifically ascertained, recorded and the insurer should satisfy themselves that the delayed claim would otherwise have been rejected, if reported in time. In the present case, admittedly the opposite parties deputed Royal Associates as Investigator to investigate the claim, who investigated the matter and vide Investigation Report dated 14.2.2012 Ex.C-18, the said Investigator has opined that time, date and place of theft seems to be genuine; the insurance company was informed about the theft of vehicle on 17.9.2011; particulars of the vehicle as mentioned in the FIR, RC and Insurance Policy are same; police investigation is over and untraced report has already been issued by the police on 27.11.2011 and copy of the same is awaited from the court. Therefore, genuineness of the theft/loss has been confirmed by the report of the Investigator of the opposite parties. As already discussed above, the
C.C. No. 427 of 2014
opposite parties demanded Original Insurance Policy; Latest NCRB Report; Non Traceable Report U/S 173 from court; Legible copy RC Book; Regd. Letter to DTO concerned regarding theft of vehicle where the vehicle was got registered from the complainant vide letter dated 30.8.2012 Ex.C-9 for settlement of his claim. Therefore, in our opinion, the insurance claim on account of theft of the Jeep in question, cannot denied to the complainant at this stage for want of these documents. In our view, the complainant should be granted some more time to submit these documents to the opposite parties for settlement of his claim on account of theft of his insured Jeep.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is disposed off and the complainant is directed to submit Original Insurance Policy; Latest NCRB Report; Non Traceable Report U/S 173 from court; Legible copy RC Book; Regd. Letter to DTO concerned regarding theft of vehicle where the vehicle was got registered, as requisitioned vide Letter dated 30.8.2012 Ex.C-9, to the opposite parties and the opposite parties are directed to settle the insurance claim of the complainant on account of
C.C. No. 427 of 2014
theft of the Jeep in question within a further period of thirty days from the date of submission of above said documents by the complainant. No order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
02.07.2015
(Gurpartap Singh Brar) President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
