BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint No.221/2018.
Date of instt.:04.09.2018.
Date of Decision:13.03.2019.
Jitin Goyal (aged about 35 years) son of Sh.Kailash Goyal, House No.12, HUDA, Sector 20, Sirsa-125055.
……….Complainant.
Versus
Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co.Near Bus Stand, Hisar Road Sirsa.
..……..Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Shri Ravinder Monga, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri A.S.Kalra, Adv. for the OP.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a motor cycle of Hero Company bearing registration No.HR24W/6304 and got insured the same with OP commencing from 21.06.2016 to 20.06.2017 which was further renewed through policy No.353700311703 00002146 having validity from 21.06.2017 to 20.06.2018. On 09.03.2018, the complainant had gone to the house of his relative and parked the motor cycle properly outside the house but when he came back at around 1.30 PM, the motorcycle was not found there. He alongwith his relative searched for the same nearby the area and further reported the matter on 100 number of police. The police of P.S. City, Sirsa had registered FIR No.216. On receiving a call from insurance company a written intimation alongwith claim form was submitted with it on 12.03.2018 and re-information through registered post was sent on 16.03.2018. The insurance company has assured that the matter is in process and the claim would be settled within three days. The complainant had submitted all the requisite documents including the non-traceable report issued by the concerned police duly acknowledged by the OP on 14.05.2018 but the OP instead of settling the claim sent a performa letter dated 12.06.2018 by pointing out few clauses with the instructions to fulfill the same which was duly replied on 15.06.2018. After that the OP sent same performa letter dated 22.06.2018 which shows that it is a self explanatory that the OP is quite confident and predetermined to decide the claim of the complainant being repudiated. The complainant moved a letter dated 29.06.2018 but the OP passed non-speaking order dated 09.07.2018 vide reference No.557/18 received on 12.07.2018. The complainant has personally visited the OP but the complainant and his family members have been put to suffer disappointment, displeasure, mental tension, dismay, unpleasant and fatigue on the alleged action of OP by repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant. This way, the OP is deficient in providing service to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and submitted that complaint is pre-mature as claim lodged by the complainant has not been decided on merit by the competent authority for want of documents from the complainant as the complainant has not supplied the report of NCRB and non-traceable report duly approved by the Magistrate. It has been further submitted that no immediate information was supplied to the replying OP as the intimation to the company was given on 12.03.2018 and the alleged theft had taken place on 09.03.2018 which is willful and deliberate violation of term and conditions of the policy by the complainant but on this very aspect also decision has not been taken by the competent authority and claim will be decided only after the receipt of documents desired from the complainant vide letters dated 04.06.2018 and 22.06.2018.The compliance of Rules of IRDA comes in operation after submission of documents and receipt of all requisite information by the company from the complainant and surveyor/investigator, if any and prior to that, it is the duty of the complainant to assist, cooperate the company by supplying the required documents but complainant failed to do so, resultantly closure of claim file relating to motor cycle No.HR24W-6304. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Thereafter both the parties have led their respective evidence. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C35. On the other hand, OP has tendered affidavit of Divisional Manager, Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He also tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C35 whereas the OP has tendered affidavit of Divisional Manager as Ex.R1 wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in the reply besides tendering documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is owner of motor cycle Hero bearing registration No.HR24W/6304 which was insured with the OP for the period from 21.06.2016 to 20.06.2017 and the same was renewed for the period from 21.06.2017 to 20.06.2018. It is true fact on record that the vehicle of the complainant was parked outside the house of his relative on 09.03.2018 and when he came out of the house, the same was missing. Due intimation was given to the police authorities as well as the OP and FIR No.216 was lodged with the police on 09.03.2018. Thereafter the claim was lodged with the Op alongwith all the relevant documents, but however, the Op did not pay the claim of the complainant and closed the claim file due to non production of un-traceable report as well as report of NCRB.
7. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the OP has stated at bar that the company can re-consider the claim of the complainant in case, the requisite documents are supplied to the OP which are material and necessary for the proper settlement of the claim. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated at bar that they never refused to submit the required documents and they will submit the same as and when the same are available with them. They have already applied for the un-traced report and NCRB report. So, no prejudice would be caused, in case the present complaint is allowed with the direction to the OP to settle and pay the claim of the complainant after receiving the required documents from the complainant.
8. In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint with a direction to the Op to re-open the claim file and thereafter considering the claim of the complainant, settle and pay the claim within 45 days from the receipt of the requisite documents i.e. untraced report submitted by the police and duly approved by Illaqa Magistrate and report of NCRB, as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant is also directed to submit the required documents and other documents which may become necessary for the release of the claim amount. Complainant shall be at liberty to file fresh complaint in case the claim is not settled or repudiated. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:13.03.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
