The present complaint is being filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) by Special Power of Attorney holder of complainant Tilak Raj Sabarwal, as he had to go out of station due to his business affairs and is unable to pursue the present matter personally. The Special Power of attorney holder Shri Roshan Lal is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of matter in dispute. He has prayed for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite party namely National Insurance Company Ltd, Branch Office, Gurdaspur through its Divisional Manager to settle the insurance claim and indemnify the loss suffered by him on account of theft of his vehicle and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest on account of deficiency in service and mental pain, agony suffered by him.

2.          The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased vehicle and insured it vide policy no.401500/31/13/6100009125 issued on 23.02.2014 after paying premium amount of Rs.2574/-, for his Maruti Alto Car Regd. No.HP-33A-5672 bearing Engine no.3217928 and Chassis no.588608 Model 2005, total IDV value of Policy was Rs.48,000/- and period of insurance was one year commencing from 23.02.2014 to 22.02.2015. He has further pleaded that on 3.3.2014, he went to the house of his relative Roahan Lal at Municipal Colony, Pathankot and parked his vehicle in an open plot just in front of the house of Roshan Lal, when he returned back after an hour, he found his car missing from the place it parked. Despite his best efforts, he could not found his car and ultimately he had to lodge a theft report at P.S.Division No.2, Pathankot, the local police found the occurrence incidental and similar to the facts of FIR no.30 dated 4.3.2014 and started investigating the matter. After the theft, he immediately informed to the opposite party and provided all the relevant information and documents. It has been found that opposite party have started their proceedings vide claim no.401500/31/6190000602, but opposite party illegally and arbitrarily closed his claim as “NO CLAIM”. This act of the opposite party amounts to unlawful and unfair trade practice, besides deficiency in service. A legal notice dated 07.03.2015 was sent to the opposite party but the opposite party intentionally avoided paying any heed to his claim. Hence this present complaint.

3.         Upon notice, the opposite party insurer appeared through its counsel and filed its written version taking the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant has filed this complaint against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The complainant informed the police after 4 days of the alleged theft and intimated the opposite party after 7 days of the alleged theft of his Maruti Alto Car bearing no.HP-33-A-5672 which is against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. As by delaying the information of theft to the police, the insured had acted against the interest of insurance company and this violation of condition is fundamental to the loss caused. Therefore, the opposite party cannot be held liable to pay any insurable benefit in respect of alleged theft of vehicle; the complaint is without any cause of action, hence liable to be dismissed; the complaint is absolutely false, frivolous and complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands as he has filed this complaint entirely based on false and frivolous averments liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant informed the police after 4 days of the alleged theft and intimated the opposite party after 7 days of the alleged theft of his Maruti Alto Car bearing no.HP-33-A-5672 which is against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. As by delaying the information of theft to the police, the insured had acted against the interest of insurance company and this violation of condition is fundamental to the loss caused. Therefore, the opposite party cannot be held liable to pay any insurable benefit in respect of alleged theft of vehicle Maruti Alto Car bearing no.HP-33-A-5672. After the intimation received from the complainant the opposite party immediately deputed Bawa Investigation Agency Dalhousie Road Pathankot to investigate the matter and report. The Bawa Investigation Agency Dalhousie Road, Pathankot submitted his report on 11.11.2014. Thereafter, the opposite party written three letters dated 14.11.2014, 23.12.2014 and 27.01.2015 to the complainant for submitting NCRB report, final police investigation report u/s 173 CRPC duly approved by the court, second key of the vehicle and clarification regarding his contradictory statement in respect to place of theft of vehicle, but the complainant did not respond to the abovesaid letters and has not complied with the required documents/clarifications to the opposite. Thereafter the opposite party vide letter dated 13.02.2015 closed the file of the complainant as NO CLAIM on account of No Response Even After Three Reminder. There is no unlawful and unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The claim file of the complainant closed as NO CLAIM due to Non Cooperative attitude of the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.           Sh.Roshan Lal, Special Power of Attorney holder of Tilak Raj Sabarwal tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CI, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C2 to Ex C12 and closed the evidence.

5.         On the other hand, Sh.Parveen Chadda Branch Manager NIC tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith the other documents Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides on the points of law and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care & caution on the points of fact, as placed before us. We find that the OP insurers disallowed the impugned Car Theft Insurance Claim vides repudiation letter Ex.C9/Ex.OP2 dated 13.02.2015 for of the reasons addressed therein at Sr. No. 1 and 3 reading as: (1) Inspite of letters/ reminders sent to you, you have not complied with the required papers/ documents and (3) We are closing your claim-file, on account of the following reasons:- No response even after three reminders. The 3 nos. of reminders are produced as: Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP5 and all the three demand in unison the same 2 documents namely: i) NCRB report – that is usually procured/arranged by the insurer itself as the same is available as duly uploaded (as and when ready) on the net-site of the National Crime Records Bureau and ii) Final Police Investigation Report U/s 173 CRPC duly approved by the honorable Court that was not available at that point of time since the produced Ex.C10 (Untraced Report FIR # 30) shows its date of acceptance as: 14.02.2015 and its date of issuance as: 19.03.2015 whereas the OP’s reminders Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP5 are dated 14.11.2014, 23.12.2014 & 27.01.2015 and that amply explains as to why the same could not be provided by the complainant to the OP insurers in compliance to their above demand letters etc. Further, the repudiation letter does not appear to be based on ‘delay’ incurred in reporting the incident of ‘theft’ to the Police and the OP insurers by 4 days & 7 days, respectively; and it finds mention only in the OP’s written reply and the accompanying affidavit. Moreover, the supporting documents i.e., FIR Ex.C5 & C6 (Ex.OP6) and intimation letter Ex.C7 (Ex.OP7) fail to provide the requisite cogent and fool proof evidence of delay. It is a matter of common knowledge that Police in Punjab practically allow a routine trace-out waiting time period of 3-4 days to the vehicle-theft FIR and that ‘delay’ falls outside the comprehension of the poor complainant. Seen from that factual-based angle the complainant need not be penalized to suffer for the same. Further, the intimation letter Ex.C7 (Ex.OP7) is itself ‘undated’ & the put-in date 10.03.2015 is the date of ‘deputation’ of the investigator Mr. Bawa and his acceptance of the same date. The date 10.03.2015 on the RHS top corner shows the office instruction of entering the claim and as such the correct and exact date of intimation cannot be determined from the apparent tenor of the intimation letter as produced on records. Moreover, we find that the impugned repudiation has been apparently based upon the non-compliance and non-supply of the documents as demanded by the insurers in the demand letters/ reminders Ex.OP2/ C9 since these were not available with the complainant at that point of time and is not based on the alleged ‘delay’ in reporting the theft incident which even otherwise has been found to be non-existent and beyond the complainant’s effort and authority. With the fast moving consumer scenario, it is desired of the claim settling authorities to prefer the ‘human’ approach to the obsolete ‘mechanical’ one in order to stay tuned to the fast ‘change’ as envisaged by the IRDA controller. Presently the complainant has duly produced all the papers (necessary for settlement of insurance claim) on the record of the proceedings i.e., have delivered the documents requisite for settling the insurance theft claim, afresh as per the applicable terms and conditions of the related insurance Policy. We finally observe that in the above backdrop even the superior courts’ judgments as cited by the learned counsel of the OP insurers shall not be of much help to him either since these resolve the matter pertaining to ‘delay’ in reporting the incident of theft to the Police and the Insurers, whereas the present complaint pertains to ‘non-compliance’/‘non-supply’ of the demanded papers/documents etc.

7.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the OP insurers to settle and pay the impugned Claim in question in terms of the related Policy within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the full claim amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of filing of the complaint till actually paid.  

8.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                     President   

Announced:                                                              (Jagdeep Kaur)

October 14, 2015                                                             Member

*MK*