Haryana

Sonipat

CC/71/2016

Sanjeev S/o Partap Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Balbir Dahiya

01 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.71 of 2016

                                Date of Instt. 16.03.2016 

                                Date of order: 01.08.2016

 

 

Sanjeev son of Partap Singh, resident of village Rohna, tehsil Kharkhoda, distt. Sonepat.

                                          ...Complainant.

                        Versus

 

National Insurance Co. Divisional Office II, Second Floor, Narain Complex, Civil road Rohtak through its Divisional Officer.

 

                                           ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. B.S. Dahiya Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. H.C. Jain, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        J.L. GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of Car bearing no.HR69AT-1096 and unfortunately the said car was stolen by some unknown person on 26.9.2013.  The complainant lodged FIR no.298 dated 27.9.2013 u/s 379 IPC with PS Kharkhoda. When the said car was not traced, the police authorities submitted untraced report on 15.10.2015 before the court of ld. JMIC Kharkhoda.  The complainant has requested the respondent several times to release the claim amount in respect of the stolen vehicle, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, rather the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds as he has not submitted the required documents to the respondent despite repeated requests and due to this, the   respondent had to close this claim file as NO claim.  However, after receiving the intimation of the alleged occurrence of theft of the car, the respondent deputed the investigator Major Mehar Singh (Retd) to investigate the matter who during his investigation has recorded the statement of the complainant on 3.10.2013 according to which, the car was being plied by the complainant as taxi.  For process of the claim, final report u/s 173Cr.P.C., original enquiry report from NCRB and copy of taxi permit were required and the respondent vide letter dated 24.1.2014, 18.3.2014, 24.4.2014, 24.6.2014, 17.7.2014 and 1.9.2014 has requested the complainant to supply the same, but of no use and due to non supply of these documents, the respondent has closed the claim file of the complainant as NO claim.    Thus, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted

that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, rather the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds as he has not submitted the required documents to the respondent despite repeated requests and due to this, the   respondent had to close this claim file as NO claim.  However, after receiving the intimation of the alleged occurrence of theft of the car, the respondent deputed the investigator Major Mehar Singh (Retd) to investigate the matter who during his investigation has recorded the statement of the complainant on 3.10.2013 according to which, the car was being plied by the complainant as taxi.  For process of the claim, final report u/s 173Cr.P.C., original enquiry report from NCRB and copy of taxi permit were required and the respondent vide letter dated 24.1.2014, 18.3.2014, 24.4.2014, 24.6.2014, 17.7.2014 and 1.9.2014 has requested the complainant to supply the same, but of no use and due to non supply of these documents, the respondent has closed the claim file of the complainant as NO claim and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation from the respondent.

          In the present case, theft of the vehicle bearing no.HR69AT-1096 and its insurance by the respondent has not been disputed.  The car in question was insured with the respondent w.e.f. 3.4.2013 to 2.4.2014 with IDV of Rs.1,82,500/- and the said car has also stolen on 26.9.2013 during the validity of the insurance policy.  The plea of the respondent for closing the claim file of the complainant as No claim is that for process of the claim, final report u/s 173Cr.P.C., original enquiry report from NCRB and copy of taxi permit were required and the respondent vide letter dated 24.1.2014, 18.3.2014, 24.4.2014, 24.6.2014, 17.7.2014 and 1.9.2014 has requested the complainant to supply the same, but of no use and due to non supply of these documents, the respondent has closed the claim file of the complainant as NO claim.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to both the parties.  Accordingly, it is hereby directed to the complainant to submit with the respondent the following documents within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order:-

i)Letter of subrogation,

ii)Letter of indemnity bond,

iii)Form 29 and 30 duly filled and signed,

iv)Untrace report issued by Ilaqa Magistrate,

v)Report of NCRB.

  It is also directed to the respondent that the

respondent shall make the payment of Rs.1,82,500/- (Rs.one lac eighty two thousand five hundred) to the complainant within a period of one month which shall start from the date when the complainant submit the above mentioned documents with the respondent.

             

          Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, the respondent is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Rs.three thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member)(J.L.Gupta Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)                                            DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:  01.08.2016