BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.279 of 2023

      Date of Instt. 18.07.2023

      Date of Decision: 26.06.2024

Ankush Sharma aged about 31 years son of Rajinder Sharma resident of H. No.180/2, Ashok Vihar Colony, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       National Insurance Company Ltd. having its head office 3 Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071 through its MD.

2.       National Insurance Company Ltd. Division Office-1, BMC Chowk, Near Redisson Hotel, Jalandhar-144001. Through its Branch Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Vikas Sood, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Darshan Singh, Adv. Counsel for OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle No.PB08DF7351 (Hero Splendor Plus). The complainant got insured this vehicle vide insurance policy no.401104312010002766 from the OPs. The insurance policy against this vehicle was valid from 16.02.2021 to 15.02.2022. On 06.01.2022 the complainant on the above stated motorcycle came to his office and parked at a place where the Advocates use to park their vehicles, i.e. near Mohan Palace, Jalandhar. When on the same date at about 4:00 PM when the complainant went outside to take his motorcycle for going at his home, he noticed that his motorcycle was not there. He tried his level best to trace out his motorcycle and even inquired the matter from other persons. His motorcycle was stolen by unknown persons. When his motorcycle was not there, he gave the intimation to the police authorities and accordingly, an FIR No.3 dated 11.01.2022 was registered with the police station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar. Immediately, complainant gave the intimation to the insurance company. Thereafter, the series of harassment started.     The complainant got un-traced report under section 173 Cr. P. C. from the police authorities. Intimation was given to the police. The complainant also got his invoice and other relevant documents. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs and submitted all the documents as asked by them from time to time. The OPs finally vide their letter dated 17.03.2023 ask the complainant to provide the communication with the Regional Transport Officer. The complainant wrote a letter to Transport Office and even the complainant also provided the same to the OPs, but all in vain. Thereafter, letters were written by the both the parties. The complainant has completed all the formalities submitted a claim before the OPs, completed with all the documents as asked by the OPs from time to time but the OPs have not cleared the claim and committed the deficiency service and unfair trade practice and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pass the claim of the complainant and pay Rs.21,667/- alongwith 24% interest till its realization of the complaint. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.500/- per day from the date of loss till passing the claim as the complainant use to hire the taxi. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that a bare perusal of the complaint proves that the complainant has suppressed material facts and this complaint is wholly baseless and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The complaint is totally vague imaginary, hypothetical and ambiguous. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed with special cost. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable under law. The dispute raised by the complainant in the present complaint is manifestly outside the preview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as amended up to date) (hereinafter say The Act). The proceedings initiated by the complainant under the act are nonest, null and void and without jurisdiction. The present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable and untenable in law, besides being extraneous and irrelevant having regard to facts and circumstances of the matter under reference. It is further averred that the present complaint is baseless and a flagrant abuse of law to harass the answering OPs, the complainant has filed the complaint with ulterior motive. The complainant has no locus-standi to initiate the present proceedings. It is further averred that the complainant dragged the answering OPs into unnecessary, uncalled and unwarranted litigation. The answering parties are known in the insurance field for their services to the humanity with the present complaint and complainant want to tarnish the name of the answering OPs. The answering OPs are entitled for special damage from the complainant. It is further averred that the complaint is reflecting misrepresentation. Because, the complainant has a multifariously violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholder Interests) Regulations 2002 and 2007. It is further averred that the OP has issued vehicle insurance policy No.401104312010002766 issued on 16.02.2021 and valid up till 15.02.2022. But on dated 06.01.2022 vehicle of complainant was stolen from Advocate Parking situated at District and Sessions Court, Jalandhar. The complainant never informed the head office of the Insurance company which is the main controlling authority and nor he made the DTO Jalandhar which          are the most necessary party. The main controversy is between the DTO, Jalandhar and the complainant as directed by the insurance company/OP so the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that in theft case as per the established law FIR on the same day is absolutely necessary and obligatory. But the OP has utterly failed to registered the FIR on the same day but got registered the FIR on 11.01.2022. There is 5 days late in registration of FIR. But on the other hand complainant has stated in para No.9 of the complaint that complainant has given the intimation to the insurance company immediately. But as per the facts, complainant has not place on record any documentary evidence in this respect. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the registered owner of Splendor Plus No.PB08DF7351. It is also admitted that the complainant got his vehicle insured vide insurance policy. It is also admitted that the complainant lodged the claim before the OPs and the OPs demanded documents, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has proved that he is the registered owner of Splendor Plus No.PB08DF7351 by proving RC Ex.C-5, Aadhar Card has been proved as Ex.C-6. It is admitted that the complainant got his vehicle insured vide insurance policy. The same has been proved as Ex.C-8. It has been alleged by the complainant that on 06.01.2022 when he parked his vehicle where the Advocates used to park their vehicle near Mohan Palace, the same was stolen by some person and he tried his best to trace out the motorcycle, but could not. Intimation was given by the complainant to the Police Authorities on the same day vide Ex.C-1 and the complainant has proved on record the application intimating the police officials regarding the theft of his motorcycle on the basis of which FIR Ex.C-4 was registered on 11.01.2022. He has also proved on record the news publication in Dainik Bhaskar Ex.C-2 regarding the theft of the vehicle from the parking of the District Bar Association.

7.                It is also admitted that the complainant lodged the claim before the OPs and the OPs demanded documents, but the claim was never allegedly considered by the OPs. The OPs have relied upon the letters written to the complainant on different dates, which have been proved as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-20 alleging that the complainant has not submitted the documents. The complainant as well as OPs both have produced on record the letters written to the complainant and the complainant has also given the reply to all those letters, which have been proved by the complainant Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-26 and Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-9. Perusal of these letters show that the OP has demanded the documents, which were non traceable report, NCRB report, Second Key of the vehicle, duplicate RC of the vehicle, Power of Attorney, letter of subrogation, consent letter and RC to be transferred in the name of National Insurance and cancelled cheque. In reply to these applications, though the complainant has written a letter that the matter has not been closed and the NCRB report is pending and other documents were already provided to the OP except NCRB report and non-traceable report. With regard to second key, the complainant has categorically mentioned that the second key of the vehicle was handed over to the inquiry officer/Mr.Rahul Pushkarna, Advocate. As per the requirement of the OP, the complainant has also produced on record the communication i.e. letter written to the RTO regarding the duplicate RC of the stolen vehicle and it was stated that without original valid insurance and pollution certificate, the RC cannot be transferred in the name of any person. Perusal of the insurance policy Ex.C-8 shows that the policy was valid from 16.02.2021 to 15.02.2022 and the vehicle was stolen on 06.01.2022 and when the RC to be transferred in the name of the insurance company demanded by the OP, the insurance and pollution had already expired. So, without the valid insurance and pollution, it could not have been transferred.

8.                In the written statement, the OP has alleged that the complainant never informed the head office regarding theft nor made the DTO, Jalandhar as a party as those are necessary party. It has further been alleged that the FIR was not registered on the same day and there is five days delay in the registration of the FIR, therefore, his claim was not considered by the OP and there is no deficiency. Perusal of the record shows that the FIR was registered on 11.01.2022 and the cancellation report was finalized by the police officials on 07.06.2022. As per the requirement of the OP, the complainant has produced Ex.C-10, the cancelled cheque, so all the documents required for the settlement of the claim were already provided by the complainant to the OP. Ex.OP-10 is the report of Surveyor i.e. Rahul Pushkarna Investigator, who has given the report and findings that the subject vehicle bearing no.PB08-DF-7351 was stolen from Jalandhar on 11.01.2022. Insured is its legitimate owner claim is genuine and falls under the ambit of insurance policy subject to terms and conditions, meaning thereby that even the investigator has not raised any objection for deciding the claim of the complainant. Ex.OP-15 is the investigation report of the investigator in which he has mentioned all the documents received by him during the investigation and he has categorically mentioned that the complainant produced copy of bill, copy of driving license, copy of RC, copy of ID Card, copy of newspaper and keys. This clearly shows that the complainant had produced all the documents to the investigator at the time of due investigation.

9.                The main concern of the OP is that intimation was not given to the OP within time and DTO has not been made party. This contention of the OPs is not tenable. The complainant is to raise claim before the insurance company and he is to get the claim from the insurance company on the basis of valid insurance policy and the DTO has no role to play, so the DTO is not a necessary party. Though, the head office of the insurance company is the controlling authority, but the intimation was given by the complainant to the concerned authority, it does not make the case of the complainant doubtful. So, far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned. The record shows that the complainant intimated the police authorities on the same day, when his bike was stolen. FIR was registered on 11.01.2022. It does not prove the malafide and bad intention of the complainant in lodging the FIR. It has been held by the Hon’ble National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kulwant Singh 2014(IV) CPJ page 62 (NC) of the Hon’ble National Commission, wherein it was observed that the insurance company should not have repudiated the claim merely on account of delay in giving the information to insurance company particularly when there was absolute no delay in lodging the FIR with the police. In the case in hand also, the theft took place in the midnight of 06.01.2022 and intimation to the police was also given on the same day i.e. 06.01.2022 and as such, there was no delay at all for giving the intimation to the police. This is not the case of the OP that the complainant is raising false claim and his vehicle was never stolen rather their investigator has given finding that the claim of the complainant is genuine. In such circumstances, the delay in intimating the police authorities and insurance company is not fatal.

10.              The complainant has alleged that the RC should be transferred in the name of the insurance company and the same should get from the DTO, but this contention is not tenable, as there are rules and regulations for transferring the RC. It is admitted and proved that at the time of seeking the document from the complainant by the OP, insurance policy and pollution certificate had already expired and without these documents, the RC could not have been transferred. More so, the copy of the RC has already been produced by the complainant, admitted by the investigator even. If any inquiry was to be made, the Investigator of the OP could have made from the DTO or could have confirmed from the DTO Office by himself. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Civil Appeal no.4071 of 2022, case title “Gurmail Singh Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company” that the insurance companies are refusing the claims on flimsy grounds and they should not be too technical while settling the claims and ask for the documents that the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control. 

                   Therefore, the act of the OP in not considering the claim of the complainant is wrong and negligent. Since, the claim has not been settled, the documents have been provided by the complainant to the OPs, in such circumstances, the OPs are directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. It is further ordered that if the complainant is not satisfied with the settlement of the claim made by the OPs, then he is at liberty to file a fresh complaint. Original documents submitted alongwith the complaint be returned to the complainant for onward submission of the same to OPs for the settlement of the claim. Thus, this complaint is disposed of. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

26.06.2024         Member                          Member           President