BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 72 of 07.10.2016
Date of decision : 06.02.2017
Jaswant Singh, aged about 77 years, son of Late Sh. Amar Nath, resident of # 164, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar .
......Complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance, Motor Claim Hub, R.O. Cell (DO-1), Near Atam Park, Link Road, Ludhiana, 141001
2. National Insurance, Ropar, Chandigarh Road, Ropar.
....Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Jaswant Singh, complainant in person
Sh. H.C. Verma, Adv. Counsel for O.Ps. No.1 & 2.
ORDER
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Jaswant Singh. has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’) praying for the following reliefs:-
i) To pay Rs.45,000/- as insurance money,
ii) To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and expenditure incurred on the claim formalities.
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that his car having registration No.PB-12-F-5164 was stolen on 8.11.2015, from the parking area in front of Gurdwara Sahib, Sector 22, Chandigarh, when he was attending Bhog Ceremony of his departed near relative. Immediately he reported the Police Station, Sector 22, Chandigarh. The police reached at the spot and made efforts to trace out the stolen vehicle, but could not succeed. An FIR No.422 dated 10.11.2015 was lodged with the police station, Sector 17, Chandigarh. He also informed the National Insurance Company, Ropar, from where he got his vehicle insured for the period from 26.3.2015 to 25.3.2016. The O.Ps. immediately deputed a surveyor namely Navneet, posted at Chandigarh for survey. The National Insurance Corporation, Ropar, sent all the required documents to motor claim hub, Ludhiana, for settlement of the claim. At the time of theft, all the documents i.e. RCC of the vehicle, driving license and other important personal documents of the complainant were lying the vehicle. Although, in the insurance copy of his lost vehicle, all the requisite information i.e. Chassie No. and Engine No. etc were duly mentioned but on the advice of the motor claim hub, Ludhiana, duplicate copy of RCC etc were got prepared and sent to it immediately. In between, he received letter bearing No. 400000/NIC/2015 dated 18.12.2016 and letter bearing 400000/NIC/2015 dated 16.3.2016, respectively, from the motor claim hub, Ludhiana and reply was immediately sent to it through the office of National Insurance Company, Ropar. After waiting for five months, he wrote a letter to the O.Ps. as to why there is delay in settling his claim, but to his disappointment he did not received any reply from the office concerned. It is further stated that after about 6 months and 8 days, he got a call from Zirakpur police station that his vehicle was standing unattended, somewhere and was brought to the police station by the police authorities. He immediately wrote a letter the Motor Claim Hub, Ludhiana and also wrote a letter to police station Zirakpur, to allow the insurance authority to take further action regarding the vehicle as all the documents were with it and virtually it was the owner of the vehicle and not he. Meanwhile he sent his son to have a look of the vehicle, who found that the vehicle was in a very depleted condition.
3. On being put to the notice, the O.Ps has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint against the answering O.Ps; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; that there is no deficiency in service in service on the part of the answering O.Ps.; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint against the O.Ps; that the present complaint is premature. On merits, it is stated that car of the complainant of Model 2003, having registration No.PB-12-F-5164 was duly insured with the O.Ps. having IDV value of Rs.45,000/- for the period from 26.3.2015 to 25.3.2016. The said car was stolen on 8.11.2015, in front of Gurdwara Sahib, Sector 22, Chandigarh, and FIR No.460 dated 10.11.2015 was lodged relating to the said theft of the car in PS Sector 17, Chandigarh. The documents of the car like RC, DL, Insurance etc were in the car at the time of the theft as per the version of the complainant. The O.P. immediately deputed a surveyor namely Sandeep Kumar Arora, for spot survey of the car, who conducted the spot survey thoroughly at police station Zirakpur. It is further stated that the complainant is responsible for delay in settling the claim because he took time to get duplicate certificate of the documents from registering authority. He did not even submitted the untraceable report duly accepted by the Magistrate. Thereafter, complainant informed them that his car has been traced by the police station, Zirakpur. Since the registration of the car is in the name of complainant and same has not been transferred by him to the O.Ps, therefore, vide letter dated 29.6.2016, complainant was asked to get it released from police station and submit the estimate of repairs to unable the O.Ps. to settle the claim. It is, prayed that the complaint is premature, devoid of merits and the same may kindly be dismissed with costs.
4. On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 along with copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps, tendered affidavit of Sh. Gurnam Singh, Sr. Branch Manager of National Insurance Ex.OP1, affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Kumar Arora, Surveyor, Ex.OP7 along with copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence
5. We have heard the complainant, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. and have also gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6. The grievance of the complainant is that he submitted all the necessary documents along with the claim form with the O.Ps but they have not settled his claim till yet. Therefore, O.Ps. be directed to pay him Rs.45,000/- i.e. the total IDV of the vehicle and Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him and the expenditure incurred by him on the claim formalities.
On the other hand, the stand of the O.Ps. is that the complainant is responsible for the delay in settlement of the claim, as he took time to procure the duplicate copies of the documents from the registering authority and has not submitted untraceable report duly accepted by the Magistrate. Thereafter, on receipt of information from the complainant that his car has been traced by the police, the O.Ps. vide letter dated 29.6.2016, asked him to get it released from the police station concerned and shall also submit the estimate of repairs of the said car to them. The O.Ps. are ready to pay the loss, if any, to the complainant for the said car as per terms and condition of the policy, hence, the O.Ps. cannot be said to be deficiency providing in service and the complaint filed by the complainant is pre mature and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Keeping in view, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the interest of justice would be met, if the complainant is directed to get released his vehicle on Sapurdari from the police station concerned and to inform the O.Ps. The O.Ps. are also directed to appoint a surveyor to assess the actual loss of the vehicle in question and thereafter settle the claim within 45 days from the date of receipt of surveyor report. We dispose of the complaint, accordingly.
8. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (NEENA SANDHU)
Dated: 06.02.2017 PRESIDENT
(SHAVINDER KAUR)
MEMBER.
