Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/367

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Ins.Co.ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Kumar Adv.

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 367 of 08.06.2015

Date of Decision            :   01.06.2016 

 

Ashok Kumar son of Sh.Shiv Partap Singh c/o Proprietor of M/s Ashok Provision Store, Shop No.4647, GNE College, Ludhiana and resident of B-37-2954, Street No.1, Guru Nanak Colony, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.National Insurance Company through Manager, Divisional No.1, Link Road, Near Atam Park, Ludhiana.

2.National Insurance Company through Divisional Manager, Divisional No.1, Link Road, Near Atam Park, Ludhiana.

3.National Insurance Company through Manager, Head Office: 3 Middleton Street, Kolkata.

…Opposite parties 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :          Sh.Vinod Kumar, Advocate

For OPs                          :          Sh.G.S.Kalyan, Advocate.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Sh.Ashok Kumar against Ops by claiming that he, the sole proprietor of M/s Ashok Provision Store situate  at  Shop No.4647, GNE College, Ludhiana, purchased one motor cycle bearing registration No.PB-10AX-6078, Model 2002, Engine No.01877, chassis No.88064 and thereafter, got the same insured with OPs vide policy No.401300/31/11/6200002246 for the period from 19.12.2011 to 18.12.2012. That insurance covered the case of theft or of damage to the motor cycle in question even. Due premium amount was paid. On 4.7.2012, the insured motor cycle stood stolen from front of shop of the complainant and thereafter, complainant approached the police station of P.S.Dugri, Ludhiana for lodging the FIR No.53 dated 4.7.2012 under section 379 IPC. Thereafter, the claim with Ops was lodged regarding the stolen insured vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10AX-6078, but OPs kept on procrastinating the matter and finally issued letter dated 11.3.2014 for demanding three documents from the complainant namely 1)set of ignition key (original) 2)Copy of R.C. 3)Non-traceable report issued by the concerned police station duly accepted by the Court. Police of P.S. Dugri could not trace out the stolen vehicle of the complainant and as such, police submitted untraced report before the Lok Adalat, which was accepted by the Presiding Officer of Lok Adalat on 23.11.2013. After obtaining the copy of untraced report, the complainant without delay submitted the untraced report along with set of ignition key(original) and copy of R.C. as required by the OPs. OPs did not issue any receipt at that time. Despite that Ops asked the complainant till the month of November, 2014 to submit the documents, and refused to compensate the complainant and after serving legal notice dated 13.12.2014, this complaint filed with the prayer for directing the Ops to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for monetary and physical harassment and even directions sought to Ops to pay the claim compensation amount.

2.                In the joint written statement filed by OPs, it is pleaded interalia as if the present complaint is not maintainable; this forum has no jurisdiction. Admittedly, the motor cycle in question was insured with OPs during the period from 19.12.2011 to 18.12.2012. After receipt of the claim intimation, the same was registered and processed by deputing Sh.R.S.Ahluwalia, Investigator. That investigator submitted the report dated 14.12.2012 and thereafter, OPs sent letters dated 16.10.2012, 5.6.2013 and 11.11.2013 for calling upon the complainant to supply the documents referred above. Last letter was sent on 11.3.2014 to the complainant and thereafter, claim of the complainant was closed as no claim for want of documents. Other averments of the complainant denied.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Sanjeev Khurana, Authorized Signatory of OPs along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed by the counsel for the parties and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                Undisputedly, the motor cycle in question purchased by the complainant through invoice Ex.C1 was insured with OPs through cover note Ex.C2. Copy of terms and conditions of the insurance contract produced on record as Ex.R1. Theft of the insured motor cycle took place, due to which, FIR Ex.C3=Ex.R3 was lodged by the complainant at earliest. That FIR was registered on the basis of statement of complainant, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.C4. The motor cycle remained untraced and that is why report of un-traceability Ex.C5 was submitted, which was accepted by the Presiding Officer of National Lok Adalat on 23.11.2013 is a fact established by copy of that order Ex.C6. Intimation regarding theft even was given to the National Insurance Company by the complainant immediately after the theft is a fact borne from perusal of letter Ex.R2. So, this documentary evidence available on record along with contents of affidavit Ex.CA of complainant enough to establish that the insured motor cycle stood stolen, but the same remained untraced despite efforts by the police.

7.                Report of surveyor appointed by Ops produced on record as Ex.R5. Perusal of that report reveals that copy of FIR enclosed as annexure-F and verification of ownership of the insured vehicle got done from the office of DTO, Ludhiana. At page no.2 of this report Ex.R5 itself it is mentioned that claim form duly filled along with key of the motor cycle attached as annexure-A and B, but RC of the motor cycle stood lost in process of theft itself. If the verification of the ownership of the registered vehicle done from DTO, Ludhiana by the appointed investigator, then non production of the copy of RC alone must not be considered as a circumstance for repudiating the claim or of demand of the same through letter Ex.R9. Besides, original key was submitted with the investigator and as such, fault does not lay with the complainant in not submitting the set of ignition key in original. Copy of untraced report issued by the concerned police station along with copy of order of Hon’ble Court has been produced on record in this file and as such, submissions advanced by  counsel for the complainant has force that whatever record/documents available    with the complainant, the same has been produced by the complainant with the OPs.

8.                In case titled as United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Netram and others-2014(1)CPJ-32(Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur), it has been held that closing of the claim case in matter of theft of the insured vehicle on the basis of non submission of original documents is improper because same reflecting as if OPs did not apply mind because documents stood stolen along with vehicle itself. The same is the position in the case before us and as such, repudiation of claim is quite improper, particularly when the complainant has produced on record the documents on this file and even submitted the ignition key in original with the investigator/surveyor appointed by the OPs itself.

9.                Investigator appointed by the OPs through report Ex.R5 has found the claim of the insurance as genuine and he recommended for settlement of the same as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Those findings recorded through report Ex.R5 are quite appropriate.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint of the complainant deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed by directing Ops to reconsider the claim of the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and pay the adjudged insurance claim amount within 30 days from the decision taken by the OPs, failing which, Ops will pay interest @8% p.a. on the amount adjudged w.e.f. date of filing of this complaint namely 8.6.2015 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OPs. These amounts of compensation and litigation expenses be paid by OPs within 30 days    from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:01.06.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.