Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/308

Mohinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Chamandeep Mittal

15 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Complaint No.CC/14/308 dt.05/11/2014 Decided on 15/04/2015.

Mohinder Singh, aged about 64 years resident of House no.435, Street no.4, Jagtar Nagar, Near Bajwa Colony, Patiala.

.. ….Complainant.

Versus

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 25, Factory Area, Patiala.

.....….Opposite party.

 

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member

 

Present:

For Complainant : Sh. Chamandeep S. Mittal Advocate.

For Opposite party : Sh. Amit Gupta Advocate

ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:

1. The complainant is the owner of Motor Cycle Splendor Pro Colour Black, model 2012, bearing registration no. PB-11- BC-7106, Chassis no.MBLHA10AS CHK 12458, Engine no. HA10ELCHK13875 insured with National Insurance Company Limited vide policy certificate no.35100731126202070390 valid from 05/11/2012 to 04/11/2013. It is averred that on 27/06/2013 brother of the complainant namely Shaminder Singh took the motor cycle of the complainant and went to his shop M/s Gagan Magan Mobile Communication, situated at Thaska Road, Ismailabad, after leaving behind the motor cycle no.PB-11BC-7106, in front of his shop. When Sh. Shaminder Singh came out of his shop at about 4.30PM he found that the motor cycle was missing. Regarding this theft, Sh. Shaminder singh got registered an FIR no.93 dt. 28/06/2013, at police station Ismailabad and also immediately informed the Insurance Company regarding the theft of the said motor cycle. It is averred that on 21/11/2013, OP issued a letter to the complainant directing him to submit non-traceable report issued by the Court, photocopy of the duplicate RC and the keys of the lost motorcycle. Again OPs sent another letter written on 10/12/2013 directing the complainant to submit the aforesaid documents. On 20/12/2013, the complainant submitted the desired documents except the non- traceable report as the court of Ms. Anjali Jain, Judicial Magistrate Ist class Pehowa had accepted the said non traceable report on 25/4/2014. After receiving the said report on 28/4/2014, the complainant approached the OP and submited the non traceable report, but OP did not acknowledge the same. Therefore, OP did not process the insurance claim of the complainant and started putting off the matter under one pretext or the other and finally it flatly refused to pay the claim of the complainant.

2. It is further averred that due to the non- cooperation of the OP, the complainant underwent a lot of harassment and mental agony, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

3. On 01/10/2014, the complainant served a legal notice upon OP but to no use. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short the Act).

4. On notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. It is averred that the complainant had obtained the insurance policy no.35100731126202070390 w.e.f. 05/11/2012 to 04/11/2013 from National Insurance Co. 106, BMC House, Cannaught Place, New Delhi. On 17/10/2013, the complainant intimated to the Branch Office of the OP situated at Patiala, regarding the theft of the Motor cycle on 27.6.2013 at Pehowa. Accordingly, OP deputed Sh. Vaibhav Sharma, Investigator to assess the loss who recorded the statement of Harjinder singh S/o Gurdev Singh & Manjit Singh S/o Mohinder Singh. During the processing of the claim, the complainant was asked to submit the non-traceable report, Duplicate RC and keys of the Lost Motorcycle and a reminder regarding the same was given vide letter dt. 10/12/2013 and accordingly the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dt.31/01/2014 on account of the violation of condition no.I, which is reproduced as under:-

“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require......”

5. It is further averred that as such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OP. After denying all other allegations going against the OP, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit, Ex.CB sworn affidavit of Sh. Harminder Singh s/o Gurdev Singh along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand on behalf of OP, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh. Gulzar Singh, Sr. Manager along with documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex. OP-5 and closed its evidence.

7. The complainant filed written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence placed on record.

8. Ex.C-2 is the copy of the Insurance policy. Ex.C-3 is the copy of the FIR which shows that the motor cycle of the complainant was stolen on 27/06/2013.

9. The complainant has alleged that he immediately informed the Insurance Company regarding the theft of the motor cycle, but he has neither disclosed the date of information in his complaint nor in his sworn affidavit. Ex.C-6 & Ex.C-7 are the letters whereby the OP demanded non-traceable report, duplicate RC & keys of the lost motor cycle and Ex.C-8 & Ex.C-9 are the letters which show that the complainant deposited the required documents with OP except the non-traceable report. The only plea taken by OP is that there was delay in intimating the Insurance Company regarding the theft of the motor cycle. Ex.OP-1 is the copy of the letter whereby the complainant intimated OP regarding the theft of the motor cycle on 17/10/2013, after a gap of almost 4 months, which is the violation of condition no.1 of the Insurance Policy which reads as under:-

“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require......”

10. In this regard, OP placed reliance on the citation “New India Assurance Company Limited versus Trilochan Jane” First appeal no.321 of 2005 decided on 09/12/2009 by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. In the said citation the Hon'ble National Commission observed:-

“In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the Police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the Police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the Policy as it deprives the insures of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/ help in tracing the vehicle.”

11. In the present case, the complainant has alleged that he immediately informed the Insurance Company regarding the theft of the motor cycle but he has nowhere mentioned the date either in his complaint or his affidavit. The OP has produced the copy of the letter i.e. Ex.OP-1, whereby it is very much evident that the complainant had informed the Insurance Company on 17/10/2013, after a gap of almost four months from the date of theft.

12. The complainant for the first time submitted at the time of oral arguments that he was not supplied with the Insurance policy due to which he was unable to go through the terms and conditions of the policy. But he has nowhere mentioned this fact in his complaint or his affidavit. As such, no deficiency of service can be attributed on the part of the OP.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of OP and the complaint is bound to fail and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Pronounced

Dated:15/04/2015.

Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta

Member Member