BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.673 of 2014

Date of Institution: 23-12-2014

Date of Decision: 12-05-2015

Abhissek Sonakia @ Abhishek Sonakia son of Sh.Malkhan, resident B-372, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Company having its office at Jeevan Bhawan, Phase-II, Newal Kishore Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001 through its Branch Manager/ Concerned Officer.
2. National Insurance Company, Sr.Division-1, having its office at Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Sr.Divisional Manager-1/ Branch Manager/ Manager.

 Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Kanwar Pahul Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.S.K.Davesar, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Abhissek Sonakia @ Abhishek Sonakia under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he got his Tata Indica Car bearing RC No.UP-93-AA-1324 insured with Opposite Party No.1 vide cover Note No. 0723731 valid from 16.1.2014 to 15.01.2015. Complainant alleges that on 20.7.2014 at about 2.30 AM, the vehicle in question was stolen. The matter was reported with police Post Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar under jurisdiction of P.S.Civil Lines, Amritsar and the Opposite Parties  were also informed immediately, but the police did not register any independent FIR under section 379 IPC of complainant. The police officials investigated the complaint of  complainant in FIR No. 266 of 2014. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with Opposite Parties  with regard to his insured vehicle and the complainant also sent all the requisite  documents necessary for processing the claim to the Opposite Parties alongwith report of SHO vide certificate P.S.Civil Lines and report of CRO Branch, Amritsar , but the Opposite Parties  did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant, rather lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties  to settle the claim of complainant forthwith; to pay amount of IDV under the policy i.e. Rs.243253/- to complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of theft till its realization.Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that inspite of various requests and reminders, the complainant has miserably failed to supply untraced report under section 173 Cr.P.C. duly accepted by the court and even no independent and  separate FIR was lodged by the complainant with the police authority and in the absence of furnishing the requisite documents, it can not be inferred that there is any lapse on the part of the Opposite Parties. Even otherwise, the complainant is also under legal obligation to furnish letter of subrogation, power of attorney and transfer of RC of vehicle in question in favour of the Opposite Parties and to execute the requisite and necessary documents besides completion of the aforementioned formalities. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.H.S.Chawla, Divisional Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant  got his Tata Indica Car bearing RC No.UP-93-AA-1324 insured with Opposite Party No.1 vide cover Note No. 0723731 (Ex.C2)  valid for the period from 16.1.2014 to 15.01.2015. On 20.7.2014, said vehicle of the complainant  was stolen by some unknown persons. The matter was reported to the police of Police Post Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar under jurisdiction of P.S.Civil Lines, Amritsar vide letter dated 21.7.2014 Ex.C7 which was attached with FIR No. 266 dated 17.7.2014 registered under section 379 IPC of complainant. The Opposite Parties  were also informed immediately vide e-mail dated 21.7.2014 Ex.C9. Police could not trace out the said vehicle and the police issued untraced certificate Ex.C4 and the report of  CRO Branch, Amritsar  Ex.C5 vide which the matter was reported to NCRB, New Delhi vide letter No.972-73/ CRO dated 2.10.2014. The claim was lodged with Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties did not settle the claim of the complainant only on the ground that separate FIR should have been recorded regarding theft of vehicle of the complainant, whereas there is no provision for recording separate FIR for every stolen vehicle.  Ld.counsel for the   complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties  is that the complainant could not  supply untraced report under section  173 Cr.P.C. duly accepted by the court as well as  independent and  separate FIR regarding theft of the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant was asked to furnish the documents vide letter dated 30.7.2014 Ex.OP4 and letter dated 10.8.2014 Ex.OP5, but the complainant did not furnish these documents. So the Opposite Parties  could not settle the claim of the complainant.    Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties  submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the vehicle of the complainant Tata Indica Car bearing RC No.UP-93-AA-1324 was insured with Opposite Party No.1 vide cover Note No. 0723731 (Ex.C2)  for the period from 16.1.2014 to 15.01.2015. Said vehicle was stolen on 20.7.2014. The matter  was reported to the police vide letter dated 21.7.2014 Ex.C7, on the basis of which matter was  attached with FIR No. 266 dated 17.7.2014 registered  with P.S.Civil Lines, Amritsar, copy of which is Ex.C6. Opposite Parties  were also informed by the complainant through e-mail dated 21.7.2014 Ex.C9. Police could not trace out the said vehicle and they issued untraced certificate Ex.C4. The matter was also reported to   NCRB, New Delhi. The report of CRO Branch, Amritsar dated 6.10.2014 in this regard is on the record. The claim was lodged by the complainant with Opposite Parties  vide claim form Ex.OP3 dated 10.8.2014. The Opposite Parties  demanded from the complainant  independent FIR regarding theft of the vehicle of  the  complainant as well  as  untraced report duly accepted  by the court and on this ground, the Opposite Parties  did  not settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant has supplied all the documents to the Opposite  Parties i.e.  copy of  intimation given to the police regarding theft of vehicle dated 21.7.2014  Ex.C7. The matter was attached by police with FIR No. 266 dated 17.7.2014 registered with P.S.Civil Lines, Amritsar. The complainant can not compel the police to  record  separate FIR regarding  theft  of  his vehicle. It has been held by Hon’ble  National Commission, New Delhi in case  M/s.Delkon (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Oriental  Insurance  Company  Limited III (1993)  CPJ 313 (NC)  that  the complainant can not be denied his claim on the ground that final report was not forthcoming. It was further held that when complainant had lodged FIR immediately but has not received the final report from the police, there is no contractual obligation under the policy of insurance for the insured to produce final investigation report from the police. The same view has been taken by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission in case New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Yadvalli Gangadevi I(2004) CPJ 263 as well as by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in case Ridhi Gupta Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. III(2008) CPJ 459. Moreover, the complainant is not bound to furnish untraced report duly accepted by the court. The Opposite Parties  were not justified in not settling the claim of the complainant for non supply of the documents by the complainant i.e. independent FIR and untraced report duly accepted by the court.
9. Consequently, we hold that the Opposite Parties  were certainly in deficiency of service towards the complainant in not settling his claim.  
10. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed with costs and the Opposite Parties are directed to pay the insured amount to the complainant within one month from the date, the complainant furnishes the letter of subrogation, power of attorney, transfer of RC of the vehicle in question  in favour of the Opposite Parties, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay the costs of litigation amounting to Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 12-05-2015.                                         (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                    President

hrg                                       (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

                                                          Member                         Member