BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 260 of 2015

Date of Institution: 27.04.2015

Date of Decision: 09.11.2015 

Yash Pal Singh son of Sh.Chaman Singh, aged about 54 years, resident of 465-C, Block, Railway Colony, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office  No.IV, Mall Road, Amritsar, through its Senior Divisional Manager/ Divisional Manager/ Branch Manager/ Person over All Incharge.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Rahul Sabharwal, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.Subodh Salwan, 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 Sh.Yash Pal Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he insured his Motor Cycle i.e. Hero Honda Splendor  bearing Registration No.PB-02-BL-1064, with the Opposite Party vide policy  bearing No.39010231136201255721 for the period from 5.7.2013 to 4.7.2014 for a sum insured of Rs.28,560/- (IDV) Insured Declared Value. Complainant alleges that said vehicle was stolen on 25.11.2013 in the noon hours about 2:15 pm when the son of the complainant went to Gurdwara Shaheedan Sahib, Amritsar for paying obeisance. In this regard, the complainant reported the matter to Police Authority at Police station ‘C’ Division, Amritsar and his complaint was tagged with FIR No. 9 dated 22.1.2014 under section 379 IPC. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with Opposite Party and the Opposite Party appointed a surveyor and he was extended full cooperation and all the requirements asked by him were supplied by the complainant. The complainant made several visits to the office of Opposite Party in order to know the status of claim, but received no satisfactory reply. The complainant also supplied untraceable report to the Opposite Party and in fact all the requisite formalities were fulfilled by the complainant as per the asking of the Opposite Party, but inspite of this, the Opposite Party has failed to pay the genuine and legitimate claim of the complainant without any sufficient reason or rhyme. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.28,560/- to the complainant i.e. sum insured  alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum to the complainant. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has failed to furnish the requisite documents up till now which were required for the securitization, processing of the claim in question. The Opposite Party had written a number of letters dated 18.9.2014, 20.11.2014, 23.12.2014, 5.2.2015 and lastly on 26.2.2015 requesting the complainant to furnish the requisite documents whose detail has already been mentioned in the aforesaid letters, but the complainant has failed to provide the said requisite documents and therefore, the Opposite Party having no other option, but to close the claim file of the complainant for want of supply of requisite documents.    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 Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.H.S.Chawla, Divisional Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
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 insured his Motor Cycle i.e. Hero Honda Splendor  bearing Registration No.PB-02-BL-1064, with the Opposite Party vide policy bearing No.39010231136201255721 (Ex.C8/OP2) for the period from 5.7.2013 to 4.7.2014 for a sum insured of Rs.28,560/- (IDV) Insured Declared Value. Said vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons on 25.11.2013 when the same was parked at Gurudwara Shaheedan Sahib, Amritsar. The complainant immediately lodged report to the  Police Authority at Police Station ‘C’ Division, Amritsar on the same day vide complaint Ex.C2 dated 25.11.2013 and his complaint was tagged  with FIR No. 9 dated 22.1.2014 under section 379 IPC by Police Station “C” Division, Amritsar, copy of which is Ex.C3. Opposite Party was also immediately informed. Said vehicle could not be traced by the police and they issued untraced report dated 12.3.2015 Ex.C3, report of CRO Branch, Amritsar in this regard is Ex.C5 and the report sent by Commissioner of Police, Amritsar to NCRB, New Delhi vide letter dated 4.12.2014 is Ex.C6 with list of stolen vehicles , but could not be traced out Ex.C7. Claim was lodged with the Opposite Party. Opposite Party demanded certain documents from the complainant vide letter dated 21.2.2015 Ex.OP3, letter dated 5.2.2015 Ex.OP4, letter dated 23.11.2014 Ex.OP5, letter dated 20.11.2014 Ex.OP6  and letter dated 18.9.2014 Ex.OP7 i.e. R.C. of the vehicle in question, untraceable report, NCRB report and independent FIR, etc. The complainant has submitted all these documents to the Opposite Party, but even then the Opposite Party did not decide the claim case of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that on receipt of the information regarding the loss of the insured vehicle of the complainant, Opposite Party wrote letter dated 18.9.2014 Ex.OP7, letter dated 20.11.2014 Ex.OP6,  letter dated 23.11.2014 Ex.OP5, letter dated 5.2.2015 Ex.OP4 and  letter dated 21.2.2015 Ex.OP3 demanding aforesaid documents from the complainant, but the complainant did not submit these documents and as such, the Opposite Party was unable to decide the claim case of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that  the complainant insured his vehicle i.e. Hero Honda Splendor  bearing Registration No.PB-02-BL-1064, with the Opposite Party vide cover note Ex.OP2 for the period from 5.7.2013 to 4.7.2014 for a sum insured  Rs.28,560/- (IDV Insured Declared Value). Said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person on 25.11.2013. The complainant immediately lodged the complaint with Police Station “C” Division, Amritsar vide complaint Ex.C2 dated 25.11.2013 which was tagged  with FIR No. 9 dated 22.1.2014 under section 379 IPC, Police Station “C” Division, Amritsar, copy of which is Ex.C3. Opposite Party was also immediately informed by the complainant. The complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Party by submitting all the aforesaid documents i.e. untraced report issued by concerned SHO Ex.C4, CRO Branch report Ex.C5, report sent by Commissioner of Police, Amritsar to NCRB, New Delhi vide letter dated 4.12.2014  Ex.C6 with list of stolen vehicles, but could not be traced out Ex.C7. Claim was lodged by the complainant with the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party wrote letter dated 18.9.2014 Ex.OP7 demanding certain documents from the complainant. All this shows that the complainant had lodged the claim with the Opposite Party prior to 18.9.2014. The complainant has already submitted the aforesaid documents with the Opposite Party. Opposite Party was bound to decide the claim case of the complainant within 3 months from the date of lodging of the claim, but the Opposite Party did not decide the claim case of the complainant till the filing of the present complaint on 27.4.2015 i.e. for the last more than 7 months and the complainant was forced to file the present complaint. The complainant has submitted all the relevant documents to the Opposite Party. The complainant was required to inform the police as well as to the Opposite Party immediately regarding the theft of his vehicle. He can not be compelled to file untraceable report or independent FIR, because it is the police who has to see as to whether the case of the complainant is to be treated independently or with another FIR of similar nature. 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.  In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that Opposite Party was not justified in not deciding the claim case of the complainant for more than 7 months and the complainant was forced to file the present complaint. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party qua the complainant. 
9. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed with costs and the Opposite Party is directed to pay the insured amount of the vehicle in question, to the complainant i.e. Rs.28,560/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of Registration certificate  of the vehicle in question  in favour of the Opposite Party by the complainant, failing which the Opposite Party  shall be liable to pay interest on the insured amount of Rs.28,560/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay the costs of litigation amounting to Rs.2000/-.  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: 09.11.2015.                                                                (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member