Haryana

Karnal

CC/322/2020

Jaswant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Rekha

04 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 322 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.27.08.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:04.11.2022

 

Jaswant Singh son of Shri Balram Singh, resident of house no.11/632, Dayal Pura Gate, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     National Insurance Co. Ltd. Dhanwant Building near Bus Stand G.T. Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager (Insurer of truck no.HR45B-6274, vide policy no.420501311810002405, valid from 31.08.2018 to 30.08.2019.

 

2.     M/s Indusind Bank Ltd. no.115 and 116, GN Chatty Road T. Nagar, Chennai-600017.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Smt. Rekha, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Manjul Mishra, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 deleted (vide order dated 12.04.2021)

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant got insured his truck bearing registration no.HR-45B-6274 with the OP no.1, vide policy no.420501311810002405, valid from 31.08.2018 to 30.08.2019 and the insured declared value (IDV) of the same was Rs.18,75,000/-. On 12.06.2019 the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen by some unknown person. The matter was reported to the police station, civil line, Karnal on the same day and in this regard an FIR no.0487 dated 13.06.2019, under section 379 IPC was registered. After the theft of the vehicle, complainant visited the police station and requested them to trace out the vehicle but they always assured the complainant that police is investigating the matter and is doing best effort to arrest the accused and to recover the vehicle.  It is further averred that the nephew of the complainant had expired on 21.06.2019 due to blood cancer and complainant remained under depression and tension. After completion of ritual formalities, complainant went to the office of OP no.1 and officials of the OP no.1 stated that they had already received information regarding theft of vehicle and complainant again asked to move the application in writing regarding theft of the vehicle and on 11.07.2019, complainant submitted an application before the OP to make entry in their record and also submitted motor insurance claim form and also requested to OP to settle the claim. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP several times for settlement of the claim but official of the OP stated that as and when the untrace report is submitted by the police, the claim of the complainant will be settled. Finding no other way, complainant through his counsel sought the information under RTI Act in respect of untrace report and then the concerned authority gave information that the untrace report has already been prepared and will be submitted in the court very soon, but police in connivance with the Op have not submitted the untrace report for the reason best known to them. The complainant submitted a copy of information received under RTI Act before the OP and requested them to settle the claim but OP did not pay any heed to the genuine request of complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the OP has rightly closed the claim of the complainant on 31.08.2020. Besides many reminders dated 29.05.2020, 18.06.2020, 08.07.2020 and 17.08.2020, the complainant has never fulfilled the requirements of the OP nor gave any satisfactory reply to the letters referred above. The driver of the complainant was himself negligent while parking his offending vehicle without any care and there was no person present on the truck, at the time of occurrence. It is further pleaded that complainant has informed and filled motor insurance claim form with the OP on 11.07.2019. But the date of occurrence is 12.06.2019. There is approximate one month delay to inform the OP. There is one day delay in lodging the FIR and complainant has not submitted untrace report and other requisite documents to the OP, which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, so the OP rightly repudiated the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 given up by the learned counsel for complainant on 12.04.2021, vide her separate statement to the effect that there remains no dispute with the OP no.2 and he gives up the OP no.2.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of FIR Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of application dated 11.07.2019 Ex.C3, copy of claim form Ex.C4, copy of letter dated 19.06.2019 and 11.07.2022 Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, copy of RTI letter Ex.C7, copy of registration certificate Ex.C8, copy of pollution certificate Ex.C9, copy of certificate of fitness Ex.C10, copy of route permit Ex.C11, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C12, copy of PAN card Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on 17.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Reena Basak, Administrative Officer Ex.OP1, copy of reminder letters (1-4) Ex.OP2, copy of investigation report Ex.OP3, copy of statement of Som Nath Ex.OP4, copy of statement of complainant Ex.OP5, copy of application to SHO Ex.OP6, copy of FIR Ex.OP7, copy of letter dated 24.08.2019 Ex.OP8, copy of complaint/copy of statement of Ablish Ex.OP9, copy of reply and affidavit of complainant Ex.OP10, copy of order dated 08.02.2022 in case titled as Kulwant vs. New India Assurance Mark-10 and closed the evidence on 12.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his truck with the OP no.1 and the insured declared value (IDV) of the same was Rs.18,75,000/-. On 12.06.2019 the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen by some unknown person. The matter was reported to the police station and in this regard an FIR no.0487 dated 13.06.2019, under section 379 IPC was registered. After the theft of the vehicle, complainant intimated the OP no.1 regarding theft of the vehicle and also requested the OP to settle the claim. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP several times for settlement of the claim but official of the OP stated that as and when the untrace report is submitted by the police, the claim of the complainant will be settled but police in connivance with the OP have not submitted the untrace report for the reason best known to them and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the OP has rightly closed the claim of the complainant on 31.08.2020. Besides many reminders the complainant has never fulfilled the requirements of the OP nor gave any satisfactory reply to the letters. The driver of the complainant was himself negligent while parking his offending vehicle without any care. He further argued that complainant has informed the OP on 11.07.2019 while the date of occurrence of theft is 12.06.2019. There is approximate one month delay to inform the OP. There is also one day delay in lodging the FIR and complainant has not submitted untrace report and other requisite documents to the OP, which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, so the OP rightly repudiated the claim and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, complainant is the registered owner of vehicle in question and same is insured with the OP no.1. It is also admitted that the insured declared value of the vehicle is Rs.18,75,000/-.

12.           The claim of the complainant has been closed by the OP on 30.08.2020, on the ground that besides many reminders, the complainant has never fulfilled the requirement of the OP. There is also delay of approximately one month to intimate the OP with regard to alleged incident. There is also one day delay in lodging the FIR and complainant also failed to submit the untrace report with regard to alleged incident.

13.           During the course of arguments learned counsel for the OP strongly submitted that complainant is a habitual offender for committing such type of acts and he has made a business of doing such act. To prove his version, he has drawn our attention to the copy of complaint Ex.OP9 titled as Jaswant Singh Vs. NIC and judgment dated 08.02.2022 titled as Kulwant Singh Vs. NIC. There is involvement of the complainant in abovesaid complaints. He further submitted that no incident took place as alleged by the complainant actually, complainant himself disposed of vehicle in question.

14.           The OP has sent letters/reminders dated 29.05.2020, 18.06.2020, 08.07.2020 and 17.08.2020 but complainant has failed to reply the same. In the all the abovesaid letters/reminders, OP has sought untrace report to settle the claim of the complainant but complainant has failed to submit the same to the OP as well as before the Commission. In theft case, untrace report is a very essential document to settle the claim but complainant has failed to submit the same to the OP. The claim of the complainant has not been repudiated by the OP, rather it has been closed due to non-submission of the required documents.

15.           Thus, in view of the above discussion, before touching the other aspects of the complaint, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is pre-mature at this stage and is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Dated:04.11.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member