BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                   Complaint No.:167 of 2014.

                                                                   Date of Institution: 24.06.2014.

                                                                   Date of Decision:09.03.2017

Sanjeet son of Shri Mahender, resident of village Nangal, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, having its Registered Office at 3 Middleton Street, Kolkata and one of its Branch at Circular Road, Ghanta Ghar Opposite State Bank of India, Bhiwani through its Branch Manager/authorized signatory.

                                                                         …...Opposite Party. 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

                   Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member

Present:-  None for the complainant.

                 Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is the registered owner of TVS Motor cycle bearing registration no. HR-15A-1505.  It is alleged that the aforesaid motor cycle was insured with the respondent company by the previous owner aforesaid Manoj covering the insurance period from 06.09.2011 to 05.09.2012 vide insurance policy no. 420303/31/11/6200002820 for a sum of Rs. 18,000/-.  It is alleged that the aforesaid owner deposited the insurance premium of Rs. 685/-.  It is alleged that on 16.12.2011, the cousin brother of the complainant parked the aforesaid motor cycle at about 1.00 p.m. on Court road and when he reached at about 1-40 p.m., the motor cycle was found missing & intimation of the theft of the vehicle was duly given to the OP.  It is alleged that an FIR NO. 464 dated 16.12.2011 under Section 379 IPC was registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani.  It is alleged that he lodged the claim with the OP company and submitted the required documents as and when the respondent company asked for settling the claim.  It is alleged that he visited the OP office for settlement of his claim but to no avail.   The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant never intimated the respondent company that he has purchased the motor cycle No. HR-15A-1505 from the original owner Manoj, who got the motor cycle insured for the period from 06.09.2011 to 05.09.2012.  It is submitted that no such intimation of alleged theft of insured motor cycle was given to the respondent company.  It is submitted that complainant also failed to report about the theft to NCRB.  It is submitted that when no such claim was lodged with the respondent company so question of any such alleged settlement by the respondent company does not arise.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.               In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.               In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3.

5.                The complainant or his counsel is not appearing since 08.09.2016 and the case is being adjourned time and again in the absence of the complainant.  It seems that the complainant is not interested to pursue his case.  This is old case, we proceed to decide this case on merits.  Arguments of counsel for the OP heard.  We have gone through the record of the case carefully.

6.                Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that no claim regarding the alleged theft of vehicle has been lodged with the OP.  He further submitted that as per the allegations of the complainant the vehicle was stolen on 16.12.2011 and the present complaint has been filed on 24.06.2014 and the complaint is time barred.  The complainant never intimated the OP regarding the purchase of the motor cycle in question from original owner Manoj son of Shri Parkash.  Manoj had got the motor cycle insured for the period from 06.09.2011 to 05.09.2012.  He submitted that the complainant has no insurable interest.  Hence, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.  Learned counsel for the OP referred the following judgments:-

I       Vijayan M. Aingoth Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2016) CPJ 446 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

II      National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Bhagwan Singh II (2016) CPJ 454 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

7.                Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the motor cycle in question from the previous owner Manoj son of Shri Parkash.  As per the contention of the complainant, the vehicle was transferred in the registration record of registering authority.  The copy of RC is Annexure C-3.  The vehicle was stolen on 16.12.2011 during the insurance coverage period.  As per the contention of the complainant, he lodged the FIR No. 464 dated 16.12.2011 under Section 379 IPC with the concerned police station.  The copy of said FIR is Annexure C4.  As per the contention of the complainant, he lodged the claim with the OP and submitted the required documents for the settlement of his claim.  He has also contended that he furnished the untrace report issued by the competent court to the OP.

8.                We have perused the record carefully.  No cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant in support of his contention that he had lodged the claim with the OP and submitted the necessary documents to the OP for the settlement of his claim.  No specific date has been given by the complainant in support of his contention regarding the submission of the documents to the OP.  It is not the case of the complainant that he had applied the OP for the transfer of the insurance within 14 days from the date of the transfer of the vehicle in his name, as per the rules and regulations.  Hence, the complainant was not having any insurable interest.  Therefore, we hold that the complainant has no insurable interest.  Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merits. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 09.03.2017.                                         (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                             President,   

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Anamika Gupta)           

                          Member.