DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1786 of 2019
Date of institution: 18.09.2019
Date of Decision: 30.03.2021
Rajinder Singh son of Amar Singh, resident Ward No.10, Bondal Road, Samrala, District Ludhiana
…….Complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Road, Near Sbop Samrala, District Ludhiana 141114 through its Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Division Office-11, Bansal Complex, Near Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana 141003 through its Regional Manager.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Registered office 3, Middleton Street, Kolkatta 700071 through its Managing Director.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh, Member
Present: Sh. Gagandeep Singh, authorized representative of complainant
Shri Jatinder Kumar Kamboj, counsel for OPs.
Order dictated by :- Sh. Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short) on the ground that the CC had purchased one motor cycle bearing registration No. PB-10-GE-6228, Hero Moto Corp HF Delux DRSCCR, Colour PBK after taking a loan from Supreme Sale Ropar Road, Machiwara, Ludhiana. The cost of the vehicle was around of Rs.52,000/-. The loan was to be paid in 30 installments. The above mentioned motor cycle was insured by the OPs vide policy bearing No.39010231166205337919. It is averred that CC’s son namely Gagagndeep Singh was working at DBA Company, Sector 82, Mohali and was living in a rented accommodation in Mohali and was using the motor cycle daily in connection with his job. On 16.12.2017, at about 11.00 PM the son of the CC was to go for his job and came down from stairs of his house, but was shocked to see that his motor cycle was missing. Thereafter he searched for the motor cycle here and there and even he asked the local persons. On December 21, 2017, the CC lodged an FIR at Police Station Phase-11, SAS Nagar Mohali in this regard. He also informed the Hero Agency regarding the theft of his motor cycle. The officials of the agency took the connected papers relating to the motor cycle from the CC. The CC even on March 21, 2018, moved an application to RTA, Ludhiana, regarding the claim of his lost vehicle. Even, he filled up the claim form on 21.3.2018 with the OPs. After 15/20 days the CC regularly visited the office of the OPs but of no use. The Investigator of the OPs namely Sh. Prem Singh always assured the CC regarding passing of the claim but till date nothing happened. The vehicle of the CC was fully insured for one year but till date no claim amount is paid by the O.Ps.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs the CC has sought the following relief:-
- The OPs be directed to give the insurance claim to the CC.
- To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/ as litigation expenses.
The complaint of the CC is signed and also verified.
2. In reply, the OPs have challenged the veracity of the complaint on the ground of maintainability & jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is averred that it was the mandatory duty of the police to forward all the relevant documents to the OPs within 30 days. The main objection raised by the OPs is that the false FIR was registered and was registered late besides that the CC had no cause of action etc. Thus, the OPs have denied any deficiency in service on their part.
3. The CC in support of his claim has tendered various documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 including copy of FIR. On the other hand, OPs have not submitted any document in evidence.
4. We have heard the authorized representative of complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.
5. It is admitted fact that the motor cycle of the son of the CC bearing No.PB-10-GE-6228 Chassis No.MBLHAR204H4A03489 Engine No. HA11ENH4A03675 was stolen on 16.12.2017, which was parked below the house of the son of the CC. Accordingly, an FIR bearing No. 147 dated 21.12.2017 Ex. C-2 was duly registered with the Police Station. It is also admitted fact that the CC had subscribed the insurance policy of the OPs for his motor cycle and had paid the subscription money to the OPs. It is also proved on the file that the CC has been visiting the office of the OPs time and again for seeking claim of his stolen bike but till date no claim amount is given to the CC by the OPs. The CC has further submitted the authority letter which was given to his son, who was using the bike.
6. From the perusal of all the documents and the averments of the complaint, it is writ large on the file that the bike of the CC, which was insured with the OPs was stolen on 16.12.2017. It is also proved on file that the claim of the CC is not settled till date. The point in controversy before us is whether the act and conduct of the OPs by not settling the claim of the CC was right or not.
7. The policy was mainly subscribed from the OP No.1 & 2 and the OP No.3 is the Head Office of the OPs No.1 & 2. We do not feel any cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence submitted by the OPs by repudiating or rejecting or not settling the claim of the CC. We feel, that the Branch Managers of the OPs No.1 & 2 were duty bound to decide the claim of the CC immediately after receiving the information from the CC. We, also feel that it was incumbent upon them to collect the documents from the side of the CC. The deficiency in service on the part of OPs.No.1 & 2 is writ large and is clearly proved on the file.
8. In view our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and order OPs No.1 & 2 to pay to the CC amount of Rs.43,406/- (insured declared valued of the vehicle) with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of the motor cycle i.e. 16.12.2017 till actual payment. The Branch Managers of OPs No.1 & 2 are further liable to pay the compensation from their salary to the tune of Rs.10,000/- each to the CC. Heavy compensation is imposed on OPs No.1 & 2 in order to refrain such Branch Managers not to reject the genuine claims of these kinds of poor claimants/consumers. The OPs No.1 & 2 are liable to implement the order of this Commission within 30 days from today since the learned Advocate for the OPs No.1 & 2 is present and the order is pronounced in the Open Commission in his presence only. The Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company will investigate the matter and will recover the amount from the concerned Branch Managers, who have not paid/settled the claim in time. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be indexed and consigned to record room.
March, 30, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Kanwaljeet Singh)
