Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/342/2015

Monu Rana S/o Vinod Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Dhiman

09 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

Complaint No. 342 of 2015.

Date of institution: 17.09.2015

Date of decision: 09.03.2017

 

Monu Rana, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Vinod Rana, resident of village Thana Chhapar, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                              

  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

National Insurance Company Limited, workshop road, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                            …Respondent.

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:          Shri Vishal Dhiman, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Karnesh Sharma, Advocate for OP.

ORDER  (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant got insured his motor cycle bearing Engine No.JA12ABEGG09107 and the chassis Number MBLJA12ACEGG07373, respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) for a period with effect form 27.10.2014 to 26.10.2015 covering the risk of theft etc. On 08.05.2015, the motor cycle in question of the complainant was stolen and in this regard an FIR No.347 dated 22.05.2015 under Section 379 IPC was lodged with the police station Jhingjhana, District Shamil (UP). After that within a couple of days the complainant gave written intimation to the OP Insurance Company and submitted all the documents. After that, complainant has visted the office of the OP Insurance company several times and requested to settle the claim but all in vain. Hence, there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and lastly prayed for directing the OP Insurance Company to pay sum of Rs.55,000/- along with compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Insurance company appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; no intimation regarding the alleged theft of the motor cycle in question was ever given to the OP Insurance Company, so no claim was lodged, in the absence of intimation; complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; a false, fabricated and fraudulent complaint has been filed and on merit it has been admitted that one Monu Rana had purchased insurance policy from the OP Insurance Company and insured Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Engine No.JA12ABEGG09107 and the chassis Number MBLJA12ACEGG07373 vide insurance policy which was effective from 27.10.2014 to 26.10.2015 subject to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. As per condition No.1 of the Insurance policy “notice  shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall given all such informed and assistance as the company shall require.”

            However, no intimation regarding the alleged theft of the motor cycle was given to the OP. Further, complainant never came in the office of the OP Insurance Company for lodging the claim. So, no claim was ever registered as no intimation regarding alleged theft of motor cycle in question was given by the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

4.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence of short affidavit as Annexure CW/A and copy of legal notice, along with postal receipt as Annexure C-1, photocopy of application given to the police station Jhingjhana, District Shamil (UP) as Annexure C-2, photocopy of FIR as Annexure C-3, photocopy of Insurance Policy as Annexure C-4, photocopy of driving license as Annexure C-5, photocopy of registration certificate of Motor cycle as Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Gurnam Singh, Administrative Officer, NIC as Annexure R-A and certificate copy of Insurance policy along with terms and conditions as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only plea of the complainant is that he lodged the claim on account of his motor cycle bearing No.HR02-AF-9164 with the OP Insurance Company but till date OP Insurance Company has not settled the claim of the complainant but this plea of the complainant is not tenable as no such documents has been placed on file by the complainant vide which he ever lodged the claim with the OP insurance Company. The complainant has placed on file only one photocopy of application (Annexure C-2) but this application had been written to the police Chowki Shamil (UP) for registration of the FIR. We have also gone through the contents of the complainant, but in the complaint also, the complainant has not disclosed any particular date or month on which the alleged claim was lodged with the OP Insurance Company.

8.                     On the other hand Insurance Company has specifically taken this plea that complainant neither visited the office of the OP Insurance Company nor ever lodged any claim on account of theft of motor cycle in question, as alleged in the complaint. It is settled law that complainant is duty bound to firstly lodge the claim with the OP Insurance Company as the Consumer Fora are not sitting for treating the claim directly and as there is a set procedure as per Insurance Act.

9.                     Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, there is no merit in the present complaint. However, complainant is at liberty to firstly lodge the claim with the OP Insurance Company along with necessary documents which are to be required by the OP Insurance Company and then approach the Forum if so required/adviced. Hence, the present complaint is hereby disposed of accordingly with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 09.03.2017.

                                                                              (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                               PRESIDENT

                                                                              DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                              (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                               MEMBER