BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 303 of 2015

Date of Institution: 12.05.2015

Date of Decision: 26.10.2015 

S.Bachhittar Singh son of S.Balwant Singh, resident of 151-A, Kot Atma Ram, Sultanwind Road, Amritsiar.

Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at 20, Batala Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office III, Queens Road, Amritsar through its Divisional Manager. 

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Sandeep Walia, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.S.K.Davesar, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Bachhittar Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he insured his vehicle i.e. Honda Activa Scooter bearing Registration No.PB-2BT-7106, Chassis No.ME4JC448CC8833175, Engine No.JC44E1944280, colour Grey, with the Opposite Parties vide policy  bearing No.404402/31/13/62000000447 for the period from 3.4.2013 to 2.4.2014. Complainant alleges that said vehicle was stolen on 25.6.2013 and in this regard, investigation was conducted with FIR No.80 dated 19.6.2013, but the said vehicle could not be  traced. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with Opposite Parties  and thereafter, the Opposite Parties  demanded certain documents from the complainant and accordingly, the complainant supplied the Opposite Parties  the documents which were in his possession and the documents which were received and obtained by him from the concerned departments from time to time. The complainant number of times approached the Opposite Parties  in the matter and requested to make the payment of the claim, but the Opposite Parties  did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of the claim amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum to the complainant. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as inspite of various requests and reminders, more particularly by way of letters dated 19.7.2013, 16.8.2013, 15.10.2013, 13.11.2013, 2.1.2014, 23.1.2015 and ultimately by way of giving reply dated 29.1.2015, the complainant has miserably failed to furnish the requisite documents enabling the Opposite Parties  to process and settle the claim in consonance with the claim procedural manual of the Opposite Party.  As such, the present complaint merits dismissal on this simple score only. So, the relief sought is not available to the complainant as envisaged under the law.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Parveen Mehra, Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP9  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant insured his vehicle i.e. Honda Activa Scooter bearing Registration No.PB-2BT-7106, Chassis No.ME4JC448CC8833175, Engine No.JC44E1944280, colour Grey, with the Opposite Parties vide policy  bearing No.404402/31/13/62000000447 Ex.C3, for the period from 3.4.2013 to 2.4.2014 with IDV (Insured value) of Rs.37,238/-. Said vehicle was stolen on 25.6.2013 by some unknown person. The complainant reported the matter vide letter dated 25.6.2013 Ex.C4 to the Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar. Resultantly, said complainant was lodged with  FIR No.80 dated 19.6.2013 at Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar. Opposite Party was also informed immediately regarding the loss of vehicle. Police could not trace out the vehicle in question and they furnished untraced report to Ilaqa Magistrate Ex.C5. The complainant also produced CRO Branch Report in this regard Ex.C16 and they sent report to NCRB, New Delhi vide letter dated 2.6.2015 Ex.C17 alongwith list of stolen vehicles, but could not be recovered. The claim was lodged with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties did not settle the claim of the complainant and demanded copy of separate/ independent FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle of the complainant and NCRB report, etc. and ultimately, closed the claim case of the complainant on this ground letter dated 23.1.2015 Ex.C8.  Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties is that on receipt of the information regarding the loss of the insured vehicle of the complainant, Opposite Parties by way of letters dated 19.7.2013, 16.8.2013, 15.10.2013, 13.11.2013, 2.1.2014, 23.1.2015 and lastly vide letter dated  29.1.2015 (Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP9), required the complainant to furnish the duplicate RC of stolen vehicle, separate/independent copy of FIR, final untraced report from police authority, NCRB Certificate and copy of driving license, etc. but the complainant did not furnish these documents. As such, the Opposite Parties  closed the claim case of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that  the complainant insured his vehicle i.e. Honda Activa Scooter bearing Registration No.PB-2BT-7106, Chassis No.ME4JC 448CC8833175,  Engine No.JC44E1944280, with the Opposite Parties vide cover note Ex.C3, for the period from 3.4.2013 to 2.4.2014 with IDV (Insured value) of Rs.37,238/-. Said vehicle was stolen on 25.6.2013 by some unknown person. The complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Parties by furnishing all the relevant documents i.e. complaint lodged with the police on the same day regarding theft of insured vehicle Ex.C4, untraced report submitted by police to Iqala Magistrate Ex.C5, report of CRO Branch Ex.C16 and the report sent to NCRB, New Delhi by Commissioner of Police, Amritsar City regarding the loss of the vehicle in question alongwith the list of vehicles which were stolen, but could not be recovered. The Opposite Parties  did not settle the claim of the complainant, rather closed the case of the complainant vide letter dated 23.1.2015 Ex.OP8 on the ground that the complainant has not furnished the separate independent FIR regarding the theft of his vehicle.   The complainant is not bound to supply the independent FIR as it was the police to either register independent FIR on the complaint lodged by the complainant or to tag the same with already registered FIR of similar case. The complainant has already produced on record, the report sent to NCRB, New Delhi, untraced report submitted by police to Ilaqa Magistrate, etc. The plea of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party that the complainant could not furnish the separate independent FIR regarding theft of this vehicle is not tenable. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case  M/s.Delkon (India) Pvt.Ltd Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited III(1993) CPJ 313 (NC) that the complainant can not be denied his claim on the ground that final report was not forthcoming. It was further held that when complainant had lodged FIR immediately but has not received the final report from the police, there is no contractual obligation under the policy of insurance for the insured to produce final investigation report from the police. The same view has been taken by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission in case New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Yadvalli Gangadevi I(2004) CPJ 263 as well as by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in case Ridhi Gupta Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. III(2008) CPJ 459.  In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that Opposite Parties have wrongly closed the claim case of the complainant vide letter dated 23.1.2015 Ex.OP8.
9. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed with costs and the Opposite Parties are directed to pay the insured amount of the vehicle in question, to the complainant i.e. Rs.37,238/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of RC of the vehicle in question  in favour of the Opposite Parties by the complainant, failing which the Opposite Parties  shall be liable to pay interest on the insured amount of Rs.37,238/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay the costs of litigation amounting to Rs.2000/-.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 26.10.2015.                                                       (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                  President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member