BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.157 of 2018
Date of Instt. 13.04.2018
Date of Decision:14.07.2022
Jaspal Singh Bal son of Kartar Singh, resident of Village Bal Hukmi, P. O. Ladhran, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Nurmehal Road, Nakodar, District Jalandhar, through its Branch Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, 3, Middleton Street, Middleton Row, Kolkata, 700071, through its Manager.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. N. P. S. Thind, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant got insured his Truck bearing registration No.PB03AJ 6277 for IDV Rs.4,50,000/- with OP at Branch Office, Nakodar vide policy No.40430231156300007373 valid from 11.01.2016 to 10.01.2017. The OP issued the above numbered policy after due verification of registration certificate of Truck bearing No.PB03 AJ 6277, Engine No.242053, Chassis No.28681 etc. which are duly incorporated in the registration certificate, all the relevant documents are on the record of OP. There is no ambiguity in this contest or regarding identity of the truck. Sh. Paramjit Singh son of Lakhwinder Singh used to drive the above said truck of the complainant. The said Paramjit Singh told the complainant that due to marriage of close relative of Paramjit Singh driver parked the truck in vacant plot in front of his house. On 30.03.2016 at about 08:00 AM when Paramjit Singh came out of his house to drop the children at school, he noticed that truck is missing. So, Paramjit Singh immediately got an FIR No.52 dated 30.03.2016 registered at P. S. Kapurthala City. The official of the insurance company were verbally informed. The complainant tried to trace the truck, but having failed to do so, written claim intimation was given to the office of OP/insurance company alongwith relevant details on 07.04.2016, which was duly acknowledged by the OP. However vide letter dated 19.04.2016 the OP without any justification asked for some details. The complainant again submitted all relevant record to the OP at Branch Office, Nakodar. Since then the OP has been promising the complainant that his case has been sent to the Higher Authorities and his case will be solved and complainant will get his due claim as soon as the same is cleared by the Higher Authorities, but till date nothing concrete has been done by the OP. The complainant has been running from pillar to post to get justice. But now the official at the branch office, Nakodar have been refusing to even entertain the complainant’s grievance saying that they cannot help the complainant 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 pay Rs.4,50,000 alongwith interest for losses suffered by complainant.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency of service over or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OPs and that being so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the OP No.2 has nothing to do with the present complaint and has been unnecessarily made party to the complainant and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP No.2 with special and exemplary costs. The complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. On the receipt of information qua the theft of the Truck in question from the complainant, OP No.1 registered the claim of the complainant vide claim No.40430231156300007373. As per intimation letter dated 07.04.2016, the theft of the Truck has been mentioned as 13.03.2016. Letter dated 19.04.2016 was written to the complainant alleging therein that the Truck in question has been allegedly stolen on 13.03.2016 as per the intimation letter and the lapses were pointed out the complainant i.e. Engine Number and Chassis Number of the said vehicle has not been incorporated in the FIR and date of theft is allegedly 13.03.2016 as per intimation letter and the concerned police authority has been informed on 30.03.2016 and intimation to the OP No.1 was given on 07.04.2016, whereas as per condition NO.1 of the policy of insurance issued to the complainant, notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any loss and the complainant was called upon to given his comment within a fortnight from the date of said letter. No comment whatsoever was given by the complainant to OP No.1. However, in the claim from submitted by the complainant with the OP No.1 on 19.04.2016, the date of theft was mentioned i.e. intervening night of 29th and 30th March 2016. On merits, the factum with regard to issuance of the policy to the complainant is admitted, 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 not filed by the complainant.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant alongwith his counsel tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1-2/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP1-2/A to Ex.OP1-2/10 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The complainant is the owner of Truck bearing No.PB 03 AJ 6277 as per RC Ex.C-2. He got the Truck insured from the OP, vide policy which was valid from 16.01.2016 to 10.01.2017 as per Ex.OP1-2/1. The contention of the complainant is that Parmjit Singh used to drive the Truck of the complainant and on 30.03.2016 at about 08:00 AM, when he came out of his house to drop the children at school, he noticed that Truck is missing. An FIR to this effect was got registered on 30.03.2016, which has been proved as Ex.C-3. The claim was filed by the complainant and vide letter dated 19.04.2016 Ex.C-4 and letter Ex.C-5, the OP demanded the details from the complainant, which was submitted by the complainant to the OP, but the OP is not settling the claim of the complainant. Vide Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, the OP has sought the details of engine and chassis number of the vehicle not incorporated in the FIR, but this demand of the OP is devoid of any merits. In the FIR Number, it has specifically been mentioned that the Truck number PB 03 AJ 6277 is missing and the copy of the RC has also been supplied to the OPs in which the chassis number and engine number alongwith the number of the Truck has been mentioned. The fitness certificate, final police investigation report, NCRB report and both set of keys of the vehicle have been sought by the OP to settle the claim. With regard to the keys of the vehicle, the complainant has stated that he is not having any keys in his possession. More so, while settling the claim, the OP does not require the keys of the vehicle, therefore this demand is also devoid of merits. Similarly, fitness certificate and NCRB report is not required for settling the claim. So far as, the final police investigation report i.e. untraced report duly accepted by the Court is concerned, this document is required to settle the claim as the complainant has sought the claim on the basis of loss/theft of vehicle. The complainant has proved on record the copy of the FIR and the order passed by the Court showing that the cancellation report was filed by the police, which was accepted by the Court, vide order dated 14.07.2018. The copy of the FIR has also been proved on record Ex.C-2 consisting of 3 pages which include the order of the court accepting the cancellation report to settle the claim. This document is sufficient.
8. The contention of the OP is that the complainant has mentioned the date of loss 13.03.2016 and the intimation to the insurance company was given on 07.04.2016. Therefore, his claim cannot be considered, but this contention is not tenable. In the FIR Ex.C-3, the date has specifically mentioned of the theft of the vehicle i.e. Truck. If there is delay in intimating to the insurance company regarding the loss, only on this ground the insurance company cannot escape from their liability. 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. More so, in his letter Ex.OP1-2/5, the complainant has categorically stated the date of loss/theft was the intervening night of 29 & 30.03.2016. Vide letter Ex.OP1-2/10, the OP has closed the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’ for non-compliance of the formalities. This letter dated 14.03.2017 Ex.OP1-2/10 is illegal, therefore this order is set-aside and the OPs have been supplied the copy of FIR and copy of untraced report. In such circumstances, the OPs are directed to settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of this document within 15 days, 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 complainant 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.
9. 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
14.07.2022 Member Member President
