| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2014 Date of Institution: 02-06-2014 Date of Decision: 28-05-2015 Gurpreet Singh son of S.Harbhajan Singh, resident of House No. 29, Kabir Park, Opposite GNDU, Amritsar. Complainant Versus National Insurance Company Limited, having its Branch Office at B.O. IV, The Mall, Above Allahabad Bank, Opposite SSP Residence, Amritsar, through its Branch Manager/ Principal Officer. Opposite Party Complaint under section 11/12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: Sh.M.P.Singh Walia, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: Sh.P.N.Khanna, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Gurpreet Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he got his Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motor Cycle bearing RC No.PB02/Temp.BB/4594 insured with Opposite Party vide policy No.35070131096201543028 valid from 27.1.2010 to 26.1.2011 for insured value of about Rs.47,000/- against the requisite premium. Complainant alleges that on 7.4.2010 he had parked his motor cycle outside Bawa Tuition Centre, Opposite District Court Complex, Amritsar to meet his lawyer and when the complainant returned back at the place where he had parked his motor cycle, he found his motor cycle missing from the place where it was parked and it was stolen by some unknown person. The complainant made best efforts to locate his motor cycle, but could not locate the same. Thereafter, the complainant intimated the Police State, Civil Lines, Amritsar regarding the loss of his vehicle and the report was connected/ clubbed with FIR No. 119 dated 14.3.2010 under section 379 IPC at Police State, Civil Lines, Amritsar. Since the vehicle of the complainant was duly insured with the Opposite Party, therefore, the complainant immediately intimated the Opposite Party regarding theft of the insured vehicle on the same day and also lodged claim with the Opposite Party for disbursement of the sum assured. The complainant also submitted all the relevant documents as well as information with the Opposite Party as required by them including original RC, original insurance and other documents and all the original documents are in possession of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party further required the complainant to obtain Untraced Certificate under section 173 Cr.P.C. from the concerned police station and submit the same with the Opposite Party and accordingly, the complainant also obtained the said certificate under section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 25.6.2011 from the concerned police station and handed over the same to the Opposite Party. The CRO Branch, Amritsar vide certificate dated 8.4.2014 has also confirmed and certified that the vehicle of the complainant has not been recovered till date. The Commissioner of Police, Amritsar City vide letter No. 265-66/CRO dated 2.4.2014 has also sent statement showing stolen vehicle from 1.3.2014 to 31.3.2014 to the Assistant Director (P), Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, NCRB, East Block, 7, R.K.Puram, New Delhi and the vehicle of the complainant is shown at Serial No.28. The complainant has received a letter dated 21.12.2012 from the Opposite Party vide which the Opposite Party had required the complainant to submit independent/ individual FIR relating to theft of his motor cycle and also to submit confirmation from the police authorities that the challan of his FIR has been sent to the concerned court for approval. In this respect, it is submitted that since the concerned police officials have clubbed the report of the complainant with FIR No. 119 dated 14.3.2010, therefore, there is no question of submitting separate FIR from the concerned police station. As far as confirmation from the police authorities, it is submitted that the complainant is under no obligation to submit any such confirmation to the Opposite Party and even if the Opposite Party requires the same, they can obtain the same at their own level and can not compel the complainant to obtain the same and submit the same with them. The complainant has been visiting the Opposite Party time and again and requesting them to settle his claim, but the Opposite Party has been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Party to pay the insured claim of Rs.47,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of lodging of claim with the Opposite Party till payment. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that Opposite Party has been demanding independent FIR as well as untraced report under section 173 Cr.P.C. issued under the orders of the court, but the complainant did not supply the aforesaid documents. In this regard, a detailed letter dated 21.12.2012 was written by the Opposite Party to the complainant clearly informing that as per the guidelines and procedure of the company, independent FIR of the vehicle in question is required and besides that confirmation of the police authorities that the challan pertaining to FIR has been sent to the concerned court for approval, is necessary document, but the complainant has not submitted the required documents. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Hon’ble Forum for want of submission of relevant documents as demanded by the Opposite Party from the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party 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 Party.
- 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.
- 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 Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motor Cycle bearing RC No.PB02/Temp.BB/4594 insured with Opposite Party vide policy No.35070131096201543028 for the period from 27.1.2010 to 26.1.2011. Complainant alleges that on 7.4.2010 said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person when it was parked outside Bawa Tuition Centre, Opposite District Court Complex, Amritsar. Report was lodged with Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar and the same was clubbed with FIR No. 119 dated 14.3.2010 under section 379 IPC at Police State, Civil Lines, Amritsar, copy of which is Ex.C6. The Opposite Party was also informed immediately. The police could not trace out the said vehicle and they submitted untraced report before Ilaqa Magistrate, copy of which is Ex.C7. The report sent by CRO Branch, Amritsar dated 8.4.2014 in this regard is Ex.C8 and report sent to NCRB, New Delhi by Commissioner of Police, Amritsar City vide letter No. 265-66/CRO dated 2.4.2014 is Ex.C9 alongwith list of the vehicles which were stolen, but not recovered. The claim was lodged with the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 14.1.2013 Ex.OP4 on the ground that the complainant had not submitted the required documents. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the Opposite Party demanded independent FIR and untraced report submitted by the police to Ilaqa Magistrate. The complainant has given intimation regarding the theft of his vehicle to the police and the police authorities have clubbed the report of the complainant with FIR No. 119 dated 14.3.2010 Ex.C6. The complainant has produced on record the untraced report submitted by the police to Ilaqa Magistrate, but even then, the Opposite Party has closed the case of the complainant as ‘no claim’. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that Opposite Party was demanding independent FIR as well as untraced report under section 173 Cr.P.C. In this regard, so many letters were written to the complainant, but the complainant did not furnish the requisite documents. The plea of the complainant that his case was clubbed with FIR No. 119 dated 14.3.2010 under section 379 IPC at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar, is not convincing. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the aforesaid Motor Cycle of the complainant was insured with the Opposite Party vide insurance policy No.35070131096201543028 (Ex.OP5) for the period from 27.1.2010 to 26.1.2011. Said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person on 7.4.2010 when it was parked outside Bawa Tuition Centre, Opposite District Court Complex, Amritsar. The complainant reported the matter immediately to the police. However, the police of Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar clubbed/ tagged the same with FIR No. 119 dated 14.3.2010 under section 379 IPC at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar, copy of which is Ex.C6. Intimation was also given to the Opposite Party. The police could not trace out the vehicle of the complainant and they submitted untraced report before Ilaqa Magistrate, copy of which is Ex.C7. The report sent by CRO Branch, Amritsar dated 8.4.2014 in this regard is Ex.C8 and report sent to NCRB, New Delhi by Commissioner of Police, Amritsar City vide letter No. 265-66/CRO dated 2.4.2014 is Ex.C9 alongwith list of the vehicles which were stolen, but not recovered. The claim was lodged with the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 14.1.2013 Ex.OP4 on the ground that the complainant could not furnish the independent FIR and untraced report submitted by the police to Ilaqa Magistrate. The complainant has produced on record untraced report submitted by the police to Ilaqa Magistrate Ex.C7. He has also produced on record the copy of FIR (Ex.C6) with which the case of the complainant has been tagged. Even in the untraced report, it has been categorically mentioned that the motor cycle of the complainant bearing RC No.PB02/Temp.BB/4594 was also stolen and the same was also investigated, but could not be traced out. Opposite Party was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the aforesaid two grounds. Moreover, 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 Party was 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.
- Consequently, we hold that the Opposite Party was certainly in deficiency of service towards the complainant in not settling his claim.
- Resultantly, the complaint is allowed with costs and the Opposite Party is directed to pay the insured amount i.e. IDV of the vehicle 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 Party, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay the costs of litigation amounting to Rs.1000/- 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: 28-05-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
