Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Complaint Case No.291/15
Date of institution : 7.5.2015
Date of decision : 23.10.2015
Harmandeep Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh r/o L-6, 3258 N New Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, S.W.Road, Amritsar.
..............Complainant
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited, having its office at Mall Road, above Allahabad Bank, Opposite S.S.P.Residence, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/Principal Officer.
...............Opposite party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act
Present : For the complainant : Sh.Raman Randev, Adv.
For the opposite party : Sh.P.N.Khanna, Adv.
QUORUM : Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President, Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member, Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Order Dictated by :
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Harmandeep Singh under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he got insured his Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing Registration No.PB-02-CA-4279 from the opposite party vide certificate No.39010231136200075205 for a period from 8.4.2013 to 7.4.2014 for a sum of Rs.42711/- against request premium of Rs.1254/-. Complainant alleges that during the validity period of insurance policy, on 25.8.2013, the aforesaid vehicle of the
-2-
complainant got stolen from the parking area of the house of his aunty. The complainant lodged complaint on 25.8.2013 to the police station Sultanwind, Amritsar and the same was clubbed with FIR No.108 of 2013. The complainant also informed the opposite party on 26.8.2013 regarding theft of his vehicle and lodged claim with the opposite party for the settlement of his claim for disbursement of insured amount to him. The complainant also submitted relevant documents to the opposite party for the finalization of the claim of the complainant. The opposite party vide letter dated 25.9.2013 demanded copy of independent FIR from the police. Complainant further alleged that now the complainant has received a letter dated 26.3.2014 vide which the opposite party informed the complainant regarding closing of his claim case as No Claim. Complainant alleges that said act of the opposite party in repudiating the claim case of the complainant on flimsy ground amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice as well as gross negligence on the part of the opposite party which has caused mental agony, harassment as well as inconvenience to the complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the insurance amount of Rs.42711/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.from the date of lodging of claim with the opposite party till payment. He also demanded compensation of Rs.20000/- alongwith litigation expenses.
2 On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in
which it was submitted that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer. It is submitted that complainant lodged claim with the opposite party and also submitted FIR No.108 of 2013 from which it was perused that no independent FIR is available with the complainant rather it has been clubbed with some other case. The opposite party has
-3-
rightly demanded the independent FIR with respect to the occurrence in question vide their letter dated 5.9.2013 and this fact has been admitted by the complainant. However, he did not supply any independent FIR nor submit any convincing reply to the said letter and under compelled circumstances, finally the file was closed as No Claim vide letter dated 26.3.2014. While denying and controverting other allegations, opposite party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3 Complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit ex.C-1, copy of Aadhar card ex.C-2, copy of driving licence ex.C-3, copy of RC ex.C-4, copy of insurance cover note ex.C-5, copy of letter dated 25.8.2013 ex.C-6, copy of letter dated 26.8.2013 ex.C-7, copy of FIR ex.C-8, copy of report u/s 173 IPC ex.C-9, CRO branch report dated 2.11.2013 ex.C-10 & C-11, letter dated 5.9.2013 ex.C-12, letter dated 26.3.2014 ex.C-13.
4 Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. H.S.Chawla, Sr.Divisional Manager ex.OP1, copy of letter dt.5.9.2013 calling upon the complainant to submit requisite documents ex.OP2, reminder dated 12.11.2013 ex.OP3, reminder dated 12.12.2013 ex.OP4, reminder dated 30.12.2013 ex.OP5, registered letter dt.5.9.2013 granting time to supply requisite documents ex.OP6, reminder dated 11.2.2014 and closure letter dated 26.3.2014 informing that the file stands closed as NO claim on account of non submission of documents ex.OP7 & OP8, certified copy of the policy alongwith terms and conditions ex.OP9.
5 We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by counsel for the opposite party and have appreciated
-4-
the evidence produced on record by both the parties with their valuable
assistance.
6 From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got insured his Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing Registration No.PB-02-CA-4279 insured with the opposite party vide insurance cover note ex.C-5 for the period from 8.4.2013 to 7.4.2014 for a sum of Rs.42711/- ( IDB of the value ). Said vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons on 25.8.2013. The matter was reported to the police vide application dated 25.8.2013 ex.C-6 which was attached with the FIR No.108 dated 5.5.2013 police station Sultanwind, copy of which is ex.C-8. Opposite party was informed vide intimation letter dated 26.8.2013 ex.C-7. Police could not recover the said vehicle and they issued untraced report to the Ilaqa Magistrate ex.C-9. Report of the C.R.O Branch is ex.C-10 and the report given to the N.C.R.B., New Delhi is ex.C-11 with list of stolen vehicles which could not be recovered. Claim was lodged with the opposite party but the opposite party closed the case of the complainant vide letter dated 26.3.2014 ex.C-13 on the ground that complainant could not furnish independent FIR regarding theft of his vehicle as per their letter dated 5.9.2013 ex.C-12. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7 Whereas the case of the opposite party is that complainant failed to submit requisite document i.e.independent FIR which was demanded by the opposite party vide letter dated 5.9.2013 ex.C-12 followed by reminder but the complainant could not furnish the same. As such, opposite party closed the claim case of the complainant vide letter dated 26.9.2013 ex.C-13. Ld.counsel for the opposite party has submitted that
-5-
there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the
complainant.
From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got insured his motorcycle bearing Registration No.PB-02-CA-4279 with the opposite party vide cover note ex.C-5 for the period from 8.4.2013 to 7.4.2014 with IDV i.e.sum insured Rs.42711/-. The said vehicle was stolen by some unknown persons on 25.8.2013. The complainant lodged report with the police on the same day i.e.25.8.2013 vide letter ex.C-6 was tagged with FIR No.108 dated 5.5.2013 ex.C-8. Opposite party was also informed in this regard by the complainant vide letter dated 26.8.2013 ex.C-7. Police could not trace out the vehicle of the complainant and they submitted untraced report to the Ilaqa Magistrate ex.C-9 in this regard. Report of the C.R.O.Branch is ex.C-10 and the report sent by the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar to N.C.R.B is ex.C-11 alongwith list of stolen vehicles which could not be recovered. Complainant lodged claim with the opposite party but the opposite party closed the claim case of the complainant vide letter dated 26.3.2014 ex.C-13 on the ground that complainant could not furnish independent FIR regarding theft of the vehicle of the complainant. Opposite party was not justified in closing the claim case of the complainant on the ground that independent FIR was not furnished by the complainant. Duty of the complainant is only to inform the police regarding theft of the vehicle and he did so by submitting representation to the police on the same day i.e.25.8.2013 ex.C-6 and it is for the police to see if the independent FIR is to be recorded or to be tagged with the cases already registered with the police. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case M/s.Delkon ( India ) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. III( 1993 ) CPJ 313 ( NC ) that the
-6-
complainant cannot be denied his claim on the ground that final police 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 the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission in case New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Yadvalli Gangadevi I (2004 ) CPJ 263 as well as by the Hon'ble Delhi State Commission in case Ridhi Gupta Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. III ( 2008 ) CPJ 459. Therefore, we hold that opposite party was not justified in closing the claim case of the complainant vide letter dated 26.3.2014 ex.C-13.
8 Resultantly, we allow the present complaint with costs and opposite party is directed to pay the insurance amount i.e.Rs.42711/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order subject to furnishing of letter of subrogation, power of attorney and transfer of RC of the vehicle by the complainant in favour of the opposite party. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
23.10.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
(Anoop Sharma ) ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa )
Member Member
