Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/32/2021

Jasbir Singh S/o Shiv Dayal - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N.S.Chaudhary

15 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    32 of 2021.

                                                                   Date of institution:         21.01.2021.

                                                                   Date of decision: 15.06.2022

 

Jasbir Singh s/o Shri Shiv Dayal, r/o village Tatka, Post Office Bodla,  District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office at Old G.T. Road, Opp. Old Bus Stand, Karnal, through its Divisional Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., # Bldg. 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 through its MD/CEO/Authorized Signatory.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri N.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Rajesh Kumar Singhal, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Name of Opposite Party No.2 deleted.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is the registered owner of Eicher truck Model 35.31 bearing Registration No.HR-65-7148 and on 26.06.2017, he got insured the same from the OPs vide insurance policy No.35360231170100002548 for total IDV of Rs.14,00,000/- by paying premium amount of Rs.41,760/- and said insurance policy was valid from 26.6.2017 to 25.06.2018. During the tenure of aforesaid insurance policy, on 22.6.2018, said truck was stolen by some unknown culprits when it was parked in Grain Market, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. The said matter was reported by him to the local police and a FIR bearing No.0217 dated 24.6.2018 u/s 379 of IPC was registered in PS Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. He lodged the claim with the OPs by submitting all the requisite documents, which were demanded by them vide letter dated 24.01.2020, but the OPs failed to reimburse the claim amount to him. Having no another alternate, he served a legal notice dated 02.12.2020 through registered AD post to the OPs, but after receipt of the same, the OPs failed to redress his grievance, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statements raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties. It is further stated that the claim file of complainant was closed on 31.01.2020 due to non-compliance of claim formalities and detailed letter was sent to him. The complainant failed to submit the necessary documents despite letters dated 29.8.2018, 19.9.2018, 17.10.2018 and 24.01.2020 and thus his claim was closed as No Claim. Morever, reply to the said legal notice was also sent on behalf of OPs, wherein, it was clearly directed to the complainant to submit the requisite documents, but he failed to do so. Therefore, the claim was not payable and prayed for dismissal the present complaint. During the pendency of the complaint, complainant moved an application for deleting the name of OP No.2 from the array of OPs, which was allowed vide order dated 20.07.2021, as such, name of OP No.2 was deleted.

4.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was the registered owner of Eicher truck and on 26.06.2017, he got insured the same from the OPs for total IDV of Rs.14,00,000/- from 26.6.2017 to 25.06.2018. During the tenure of aforesaid insurance policy, on 22.6.2018, said truck was stolen by some unknown culprits when it was parked in Grain Market, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. The said matter was reported by him to the local police and a FIR bearing No.0217 dated 24.6.2018 u/s 379 of IPC was registered in PS Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. He further argued that the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs by submitting all the requisite documents, which were demanded by them vide letter dated 24.01.2020, but the OPs failed to reimburse the claim amount to him. Having no another alternate, the complainant served a legal notice dated 02.12.2020 through registered AD post to the OPs, but after receipt of the same, the OPs failed to redress his grievance, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.                The learned counsel for OPs argued that the claim file of complainant was closed on 31.01.2020 due to non-compliance of claim formalities and detailed letter was sent to him. The complainant failed to submit the necessary documents despite letters dated 29.8.2018, 19.9.2018, 17.10.2018 and 24.01.2020 and thus his claim was closed as No Claim. Moreover, reply to the said legal notice was also sent on behalf of OPs, wherein, it was clearly directed to the complainant to submit the requisite documents, but he failed to do so, therefore, the claim was not payable and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

9.                There is no dispute between the parties that the truck in question was insured with the OPs from 26.6.2017 to 25.6.2018 for IDV of Rs.14,00,000/- vide insurance policy Ex.C4/Ex.R-1. There is also no dispute that the said truck was stolen on 22.6.2018 and in this regard FIR Ex.C-2 was registered in PS Ladwa. The said truck was not traced and in this regard, Untrace Report was submitted by the police concerned before the Judicial Magistrate, which was accepted by him vide its order dated 21.12.2019 Ex.C-1. Since the policy in question was valid from 26.6.2017 to 25.6.2018 and truck in question was stolen on 22.6.2018 i.e. within the tenure of insurance policy in question.

10.              The grievance of the complainant is that he submitted all the requisite documents with the OPs regarding his claim, but they failed to release his claim. On the other hand, the OPs contended that they issued various letters dated 29.8.2018, 19.9.2018, 17.10.2018 and 24.01.2020 Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 respectively to the complainant to supply the requisite documents with them, but he failed to do so and ultimately, his claim was closed as ‘No Claim’ vide letter dated 31.01.2020 Ex.R-5.

11.              From the submissions of the parties, we found that since the truck in question was not traced and as such, Untrace report was submitted by the police concerned, which was duly accepted by the Judicial Magistrate concerned, therefore, now OPs were duty bound to release the claim amount of Rs.14,00,000/- to the complainant, but they did not release the same, rather closed the same as No Claim on the ground of non-submission of requisite documents by the complainant. But it is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of this complaint, the complainant had supplied all the remaining requisite documents to the OPs, even in the presence of this Commission, but even thereafter till today, the OPs failed to settle/release the genuine claim amount to the complainant, which is an act of gross deficiency in service, on the part of the OPs. Since the truck in question was insured with the OPs for IDV of Rs.14,00,000/-, as is evident from the insurance policy Ex.C4/Ex.R1, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the said amount from the OPs along with the compensation amount and litigation expenses.

12.              In view of our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay the sum insured of Rs.14,00,000/- to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.15,000/-, to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the claim amount of Rs.14,00,000/- shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:15.06.2022.

 

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                   (Member.                                                  DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.