Complainant Kewal Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.4,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the due date till realization and opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is owner of the Tata 2516 Tipper/Truck bearing no.PB-06-2217. He was using the same to earn his livelihood. He got insured his vehicle from the opposite party and policy having 401500/31/13/6300005262 has been issued and the vehicle was insured with the opposite party for a period from 15.10.2013 to 14.10.2014 and the IDV value has been declared as Rs.4,20,000/-. The insurance has been taken not for any benefit but only for indemnify the loss if any occurred and as such he falls under the definition of consumer as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. His vehicle was stolen in the night of 2.4.2014. The FIR No.55 dated 3.4.2014 Under Section 379 IPC was duly registered Under Section 379 IPC at P.S.Indora, in the area of which the vehicle was stolen. After that the intimation has been duly given to the Insurance Company. The copy of FIR and insurance policy also provided to opposite party. After that the Un-trace Report was filed by the police in the court and the untraced report was accepted by the court of JMIC, Indora District Kangra (H.P.) on dated 1.10.2015.The entire documents has been duly provided to the Insurance Company. He was also sent to Delhi by the opposite party and asked to bring the report from the Ministry of Home Affairs, National Crime record Bureau regarding the stolen truck and the same was also provided to the opposite party and as such all the formalities have been duly completed, but in spite of all this, the claim has not been paid by the opposite party without any reasonable cause. He approached to the opposite party many times to get the claim amount but the opposite party is not paying the genuine claim and is making false excuses and harassing him unnecessarily. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable because the complainant does not have insurable interest in the present complaint. As per claim of the complainant, he is the sole owner of the vehicle PB-06-F-2217, whereas the policy of insurance and the RC of the said vehicle is in the name of M/s.Mohan Lal-Kewal Singh; the complaint is also not maintainable because as per report of the concerned transport authority the permit of the said vehicle is for Plains of Punjab, whereas the said vehicle was stolen from Damtal in Himachal Pradesh. This being the contravention of the terms and conditions of policy of insurance, the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation and the complaint is also not maintainable because the complainant has not bothered to supply certain documents and keys of the insured vehicle, asked from him vide letter dated 27.01.2015 and reminders dated 23.02.2015 and 10.3.2015. Thereafter the opposite party as per procedure closed his claim file as “NO CLAIM” after giving him due information vide letter dated 26.3.2015. On merits, it was submitted that the information regarding theft of the insured vehicle was provided to the office of Insurance Company. It was also not disputed that FIR regarding theft of the said vehicle was also provided by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
- Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Parveen Chadha Branch Manager of the opposite party Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.P-2 and Ex.OP12 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the OP insurer’s repudiation of the complainant’s theft total-loss claim’s alleging ‘absence of insurable interest’. The OP insurers have admitted the factum of complainant’s vehicle-insurance, its reported theft-claim and its subsequent ‘repudiation’ as ‘No-Claim’ at the face of alleged non-submission of the requisite documents by the complainant who has proved that his other partner has legally ‘hived-off’ from the partnership and presently he owns the firm as proprietor to claim the impugned claim.
7. However, we find that the learned counsel for the OP insurers during the course of arguments has somehow pleaded that the impugned claim was simply deferred/ set-aside as ‘No-Claim’ on account of non-submission of requisite documents by the complainant and he instead of submitting the claim documents did file the present complaint lurking in state of ‘immaturity’ and further assured that the same shall still be duly considered with filing of the ‘gap’ information documents etc.
8. We, thus find that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the complainant to submit the requisite information documents with the OP insurers within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders and who in turn shall decide and convey the ‘fate’ of the impugned claim to him within a further period of 30 days of the receipt of the same. The parties here shall bear their costs for the above discussed reason(s).
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
November 25, 2016 Member.
*MK*
