Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/468

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.S.Heer Adv.

06 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 468 of 06.08.2015

Date of Decision            :   06.06.2016 

 

Vijay Kumar s/o Sh.Rama Shanker, House No.2597, Street No.13.5, Near Punjab Handloom, Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana-141003.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.National Insurance Company Limited, Hero Honda Vertical, 101106, B.M.C.House, N.I.Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001, through its Senior Divisional Manager.

2.National Insurance Company Limited, Mehtab House, Near Ujgar Service Station, Dhulkot Road, Ahmedgarh-148021, District Sangrur, Branch Code No.401308, through its Branch Manager.

3.M/s Sai Motors, Gill Road, Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Partner.

 

…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.S.S.Heer, Advocate

For OP1 and OP2           :          Sh.M.S.Jassal, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant, owner of motor cycle bearing registration No.PB-10-DJ-2610, got the same insured from OP1 and OP2 after purchase of the same from OP3. That insurance certificate No.35100731116201908635 was having validity for period from 9.11.2011 to 8.11.2012. Premium of Rs.1173/- was paid by the complainant. On the footnote of the insurance certificate, it is mentioned that for renewal, OP3 be contacted because the same has agency code No.93290101 of OP1 and OP2. Name of insured deliberately mentioned as Vijay Kumari, but  the endorsement for the same is applicable to Vijay Kumar. Total value of the insured vehicle was Rs.45,579/-. This insured vehicle i.e. Motor cycle of model Passion Pro Cast Self of Hero Motor Corp met with an accident on 28.9.2012, during the period from 5:30 AM to 7:30 AM near Arora Place, Gill Road, Ludhiana. Information of this accident was supplied to the Police Post No.6.3/4 Kwality Chowk, Gali No.6, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana through   MHC Balwinder Singh on the day of accident itself. Even intimation through Fax was given to OP1 and OP2. That was confirmed by the complainant vide letter dated 25.10.2012. Letter dated 1.10.2012 was received by the complainant from Op2 for demanding the original claim intimation, copy of FIR, both keys of vehicle and copy of R.C. After receipt of this letter, complainant sent the key of motor cycle by claiming that R.C. of the motor cycle had already been stolen along with motor cycle because the same was lying in the Dicky of the motor cycle at the time of theft. Thereafter, complainant received letters dated 7.11.2012 and 3.12.2012 from OP2, vide which, demand of copy of FIR and second key of the vehicle was put forth. FIR No.192 dated 29.12.2012 u/s 379 IPC was registered at P.S.Shimla Puri, Ludhiana qua this theft. Complainant through a letter informed OP1 as if one of the key had already been stolen with the motor cycle and second had already been handed over to it. Complainant sent copy of FIR with request to settle the claim. However, complainant later on received letters dated 22.4.2013, 14.8.2013 and 2.12.2013 for calling upon him to submit the documents. Through another letter dated 4.12.2013, it was disclosed to the complainant that claim case file will be closed without further reminder, in case, documents not submitted. Though, complainant remained in contact with the concerned police station earlier, but was able to receive the copy of non traceable report on 21.4.2015 only and that is why, he sent the same to OP2 vide letter dated 22.4.2015. Despite that claim has not been settled and nothing heard from the side of OPs and as such by pleading deficiency in service, prayer made for directing OPs to settle the claim and pay Rs.45,579/-, the insured value of the motor cycle along with interest @18% p.a. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/- even sought.

2.                In the joint written statement filed by OP1 and OP2, it is claimed that complaint is not maintainable because complainant has not submitted the documents sought through letter dated 2.12.2013, despite the fact that earlier through letters dated 28.2.13, 24.4.2013 and 14.8.2013, certified copy of untraced report issued by the Court, copy of R.C., both keys of vehicle and latest NCRB report were sought from the complainant. It is claimed that due to non supply of these documents, claim of the complainant had been closed by recording note of ‘No Claim’ on 9.7.2014. Intimation of the same was conveyed to the complainant through registered letter. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured and intimation by Ops through fax regarding theft was received from the complainant on 28.9.2012. Ops through letter dated 1.10.2012 sought above referred documents along with keys from the complainant, but those have not been submitted by the complainant. Sh.R.S.Ahluwalia was appointed as investigator, who recorded statements and prepared signed report dated 4.02.2013. Reminders dated 7.11.2012 and 3.12.2012 even were sent to the complainant for submitting the documents along with keys as referred above. However, complainant gave photo stat copy of FIR alleged to be registered on 29.12.2012 with P.S.Shimla Puri, Ludhiana. FIR lodged after lapse of 3 months of the incident and as such, it is claimed that afterthought story put forth. Other averment of the complaint denied by praying that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. Action of treating the claim file as ‘No Claim’ defended.

3.                OP3 is ex-parte in this case.

4.                Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA of complainant along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C20 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 and OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Gurmeet Singh, Senior Branch Manager of OP1 and OP2 along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                          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. 

7.                 It is vehemently contended by Sh.M.S.Jassal, Advocate representing OP1 and OP2 that theft of the motor cycle in question allegedly took place on 28.9.2012, but FIR was lodged on 29.12.2012 and as such, in view of delay of 3 months in registering the FIR, complainant has put forth afterthought versions. Even if delay in registering the FIR may be there, despite that intimation regarding the theft was supplied by the complainant to OP1 and OP2 through FAX on the day of theft namely 28.9.2012 itself is a fact borne from letter Ex.R3 produced by the OPs. Even at page No.1 of the written statement in preliminary objections, it is admitted by the answering OPs that intimation of theft was submitted through Fax and as such, delay in registering the FIR alone cannot be taken a ground for repudiating the claim. Rather, Sh.R.S.Ahluwalia, the appointed investigator through his report dated 4.2.2013 Ex.R11 even has expressed opinion that the insured motor cycle in question was stolen on 28.9.2012 between 5:30 AM and 7:30 AM. When findings of the investigator and admission of OPs establishes the factum of taking place of theft of the insured motor cycle on 28.9.2012, then late lodging of FIR is not fatal to the case of the complainant, particularly when intimation regarding the theft through Fax was given to OP1 and OP2 on the day of such theft itself, paving way of OP1 and OP2 to collect the evidence qua theft at earliest and even take steps for tracing the stolen insured motor cycle.

8.                Ex.C3, Ex.C4 along with Ex.R1 are the documents proving as if the vehicle in question was insured, but Ex.C8=Ex.R3=Ex.C9=Ex.R4, Ex.C10=Ex.R5 along with copy of claim form Ex.R6, Ex.C12 to Ex.C16 and Ex.R8 to Ex.R10 proves as if after lodging of claim by the complainant with Op1 and OP2, certified copy of untraced report issued by the Court, copy of RC and latest NCRB report etc., were sought from the complainant. Though, initially through letter Ex.C8, both keys of the stolen insured vehicle was also sought from the complainant, but the complainant informed OPs through writing Ex.C6 as if one of the key of the motor cycle is already lost, but he is sending the second key of the motor cycle through this letter. Through Ex.C6, complainant even informed the Branch Manager of OPs as if RC of the motor cycle even is lost because of the theft of the motor cycle. After Ex.C6, only three documents namely certified copy of untraced report, copy of R.C. and latest NCRB report alone were sought from the complainant vide letters Ex.C12 and Ex.C13. However, subsequently through letter Ex.C15, certified copy of untraced report issued by the Court and latest NCRB report alone were sought from the complainant by intimating him that these documents be submitted within 15 days, failing which, his claim file will be closed by treating the claim as ‘No Claim’. Ex.C17 is the report of M.H.C. P.S.Shimla Puri, Ludhiana, which shows as if Court of Sh.Jag Milap Singh Khushdil, Learned JMIC, Ludhiana has accepted the  untraced report. So,   complainant has produced on record the required documents to show that report of un-traceability has been accepted by the Court. OPs can verify the contents of Ex.C17 from the concerned police station or from the records of the court concerned and as such, whatsoever required to be done by the complainant qua submission of copy of untraceable report, the same has been done by him by producing Ex.C17 on record of this file. This Ex.C17 was sent by the complainant to Ops through letter Ex.C16 of 22.4.2015 and as such, thereafter, it remained responsibility of OPs to verify that fact. Report from National Crime Records Bureau(NCRB) qua non recovery of the insured motor cycle even has been obtained by the complainant and copy of the same produced on record as Ex.C20 and as such, virtually the complainant has produced on record of this file, the documents required for processing and settling the insurance claim. Copy of FIR Ex.RA=Ex.C11 has been produced on record by both the parties and as such, dispute qua registration of FIR does not remain. As one of the key had already been lost by the complainant and as such, he could have produced one of the available ignition key of the motor cycle alone. That certainly has been produced by the complainant because perusal of page no.2 of report Ex.R11 of appointed investigator itself establishes that claim form duly filled and one key of the motor cycle had been received and that is why, both of them attached as annexure A and B. So, submissions advanced by the counsel for OPs has no force that due to non providing of one of the key, claim could not be processed. As one of the key lost qua which intimation has already been given to the insurance company and as such, insurance company cannot insist for second key. So, repudiation of claim through letter dated 9.7.2014, Ex.R12, by treating the claim file as ‘No Claim’ is improper, particularly when copy of NCRB report Ex.C20 and collected record of untraceable report Ex.C17 has already been produced by the complainant. In case, difficulties arises     in allowing the claim for want of registration certificate in original, then help of the complainant can be obtained by procuring such documents from him as are essential for transfer of RC in the name of OP1 and OP2. Allowing of the claim can be     subject to condition of execution of such documents as are required essential for transferring the ownership from the complainant to OP1 and OP2. However, straightway treating the claim of complainant as ‘No Claim’ is improper and as such, complaint deserves to be allowed in terms that OP1 and OP2 will reconsider the claim of the complainant on submission of certain documents available with complainant as well as on submission of affidavit by the complainant qua non possession of the remaining documents.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that complainant will make available to OP1 and OP2, the attested copy of the untraced report as accepted by Magistrate within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Even complainant will hand over the copies of documents like Ex.C6, Ex.C17 and Ex.C20 to OP1 and OP2 for disclosing them that second key is not available with him and RC has already been lost. Complainant will also submit affidavit qua non-possession of remaining documents sought through Ex.R12 or Ex.R3 to Ex.R5 and Ex.R8 to Ex.R12. After submission of these documents, claim of complainant will be finally adjudicated by OP1 and OP2 within 30 days there from. On adjudication of claim of complainant, payment will be made by OP1 and OP2 within 30 days form final adjudication of the claim and in case, that payment not made within 30 days after such adjudication, then complainant will be entitled to interest @8% per annum from today onwards till recovery. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:06.06.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.