BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.271 of 2014

Date of Instt. 12.08.2014

Date of Decision :22.01.2015

1. Deep Finance Corporation Ltd, Regd.Office 438-B, Green Park, Garha Road, Jalandhar.

2. Happy son of Palwinder Kumar R/o H.No.269, Kot Kishan Chand, Jalandhar.

..........Complainants

Versus

1. National Insurance Company Limited, B.O.III, PNB, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar City.

2. National Insurance Company Ltd, Regd.Office-3, Middleton Street, Kokatta-700071.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Varun Khanna Adv., counsel for complainants.

Sh.R.S Arora Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant No.1 had financed a vehicle, motorcycle model Bajaj Platina bearing registration No.PB-08-BG-4975. Complainant No.1 had got scribed the hypothecation agreement with complainant No.2. Complainant No.1 had also got its name registered being financier of the vehicle with DTO Jalandhar. The hypothecation with regard to the said vehicle was also registered in the name of complainant No.1 on the registration certificate of the vehicle. The complainants are consumer of opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2 is the head office of opposite party No.1. Said vehicle was insured by opposite party no.1 and opposite party No.1 had also issued a cover note of the policy with regard to the said vehicle vide policy No.40430531106200005025. However the policy of the vehicle was made in the name of purchaser of the vehicle, complainant No.2 i.e Happy son of Palwinder Kumar but the vehicle was hypothecated by complainant No.2. The complainants are entitled to get the claim of the vehicle being owner of the said vehicle. complainant No.2 informed to complainant No.1 that the vehicle financed by complainant No.1 had been stolen by unknown person. The complainant No.2 also informed to the SHO PS Division No.8, through an application dated 15.10.2011 which was endorsed by the police vide its registration No.314-SPT. The concerned police officials had conducted the investigation in the said occurrence and tried their best for tracing out vehicle but all the efforts made by the police officials went in vain. Complainant No.1 lodged the claim with opposite party no.1 vide letter dated 18.10.2011 and again vide letter dated 3.12.2013 and opposite party No.1 has duly replied to the said letter. Complainant no.1 again sent request letter on 17.12.2013 to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 replied vide letter dated 18.12.2013 stating that it has not received any intimation regarding the claim in respect of the said vehicle under the insurance policy. The complainant no.1 served a legal notice to the opposite parties through its counsel vide dated 27.6.2014 by registered post on 28.6.2014. It is further alleged that market value of the vehicle at the time of insurance was Rs.24000/-. On such like averments, the complainants have prayed for Rs.24,000/- beside compensation.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that no intimation of the alleged theft of 15.10.2011 was made by Happy, the owner and insured of the motorcycle nor by the present complainant(i.e complainant No.1) nether the claim is registered with the company or the one pending with it. Out of ill-conceived plan, one letter was sent by the complainant finance company on 3.12.2013 to the opposite party about alleged theft of 15.10.2011, which was replied by the opposite party on 18.12.2013 conveying to the complainant that "We have not received any intimation letter till now. As you have mentioned in your letter that you have already sent the intimation letter, please provide us the receipt of the Regd.letter issued by the post office and also provide us to correspondence by our office in this regard". The relevant and material time to intimate the loss, if one was there, was on or about 15.10.2011 at the time of alleged theft of the motorcycle, which having not been done, no indulgence could be shown, since no investigation or survey can be conducted, no cause of theft could be ascertained by the insurance company, no final survey could be visualized to be done, no documentation could be made. In other words, had the insured informed, the insurer would have come into action and got the facts and circumstances in which the alleged theft had taken place investigated the loss assessed in the year 2011 and not after so many years. Once no claim was preferred with the insurance company, there arose no occasion for settlement of the claim or repudiation, therefore, it is submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. They also took preliminary objections regarding limitation, not approaching the Forum with clean hands etc. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of their complaint, learned counsel for the complainants has tendered affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CW2/A alongwith copies of document Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OA and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels of both the parties.

6. Originally the present complaint was filed by complainant No.1 and complainant No.2 was impleaded later on. According to the complainants, the insured motorcycle of complainant No.2 which was hypothecated with complainant No.1 was stolen by some unknown person on 15.10.2011 and complainant No.2 intimated regarding the theft to SHO PS Division No.8 vide application dated 15.10.2011. Further according to the complainants, complainant No.2 lodged the claim with opposite party insurance company vide letter dated 18.10.2011 Ex.C1. On the other hand, the version of the opposite parties is that no intimation of the alleged theft on 15.10.2011 was made by the owner i.e complainant No.2 or even by complainant No.1 and the claim is not registered with the company nor the same is pending with it. Further according to the opposite parties, complainant No.1 sent one letter dated 3.12.2013 Ex.C2 alleging theft on 15.10.2011 which was replied by opposite party insurance company on 18.12.2013 conveying that they have not received any intimation letter till date and asked the complainant No.1 to provide them with the receipt of registered letter issued by post office and the correspondence done by the office of complainant No.1 in this regard. So according to the opposite party insurance company it did not receive any intimation regarding the theft till the receipt of letter dated 3.12.2013 nor any claim was registered with it or is pending with it. Since the insurance company has not decided the claim in respect of the insured motorcycle on merit one way or another so far, on the ground that it has not received any intimation regarding the theft of the motorcycle till the receipt of letter dated 3.12.2013 Ex.C2, as such we feel that insurance company should be given an opportunity to decide the claim of the complainant one way or another.

7. In the above circumstances, the present complaint is disposed off with the directions to the insurance company that it may treat the letter dated 3.12.2013 Ex.C2 as letter of intimation of theft and further complainants are directed to supply any documents which they may desire to the insurance company including the documents or evidence regarding sending of letter of intimation dated 18.10.2011 to the insurance company within 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order and thereafter the opposite party insurance company shall decide the claim of the complainants within two months positively one way or another on the basis of documents, if any already submitted by complainants to the insurance company and further on the basis of documents which the complainants have produced during the trial of the present complaint and further on the basis of documents which the complainants may further submit to the insurance company within above said period of 15 days. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

22.01.2015 Member President