Punjab

Moga

CC/17/35

Nagar Panchayat Kot Ise Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Ashwani Majithia

20 Sep 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 35 of 2017

                                                                                      Instituted on: 29.03.2017

                                                                                      Decided on: 20.09.2017

 

Nagar Panchayat Kot Ise Khan, through its Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Kot Ise Khan, District Moga.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Micro Office, New Talwandi Road, Zira, through its Assistant Manager.

 

2.       New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Zonal Office, Shaheed Udham Singh Chowk, Malwal Road, Ferozepur, through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Ashwani Majithia, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Ajay Gulati, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Micro Office, New Talwandi Road, Zira, through its Assistant Manager and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to make payment of Rs.4,79,007/- with interest @ 18% per annum to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant is the owner of Swaraj 735XM Tractor no.PB-29R-4813. The said tractor was insured with opposite parties, vide insurance cover no./policy no.36070831140100000168 commencing from 29.08.2014 to 28.08.2015. On 14.06.2015, the said tractor and trolley was stolen and accordingly on the same day written complaint was filed to the police and FIR no.65 dated 22.06.2015 with P.S. Kot Ise Khan was lodged. The complainant informed regarding theft of Tractor/Trolley to opposite parties, who investigated the matter through Royal Associates Investigation and Detective Agency. A letter dated 04.07.2015 sent by Royal Associated Investigation and Detective Agency to Nagar Panchayat Kot Ise Khan regarding investigation of theft claim of said Tractor/Trolley. The complainant moved many applications to SSP, Moga and IO of the concerned case regarding the theft of Tractor/Trolley. But after investigation in FIR no.65 of 2015, IO made his non traceable report under section 173 of Cr.P.C on 12.11.2015 and on this report, SDM Dharamkot recommended to consign the file in record room. The opposite parties prepared claim for said loss approximately to the extent of Rs.3,49,969/- according to their letter dated 05.08.2016. As per insurance policy total value of the tractor was 4,79,007/- and the opposite parties approved very less claim than the value of vehicle. In this regard, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 22.12.2016 to opposite parties regarding approval of less amount than the total value of the vehicle. The opposite parties sent Registered A.D. dated 03.01.2017 to executive officer with remarks "Closing the claim sine die as no claim". There is clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Due to the acts of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and agony. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; that the tractor in question was being used for Commercial Purpose by the complainant, which is a Government Institution, that means the tractor was not used for the livelihood of any individual person and as such the present complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act; that the complainant is estopped to file the present complaint by its own act and conduct. Inspite of repeated letters and intimations by insurance company, the complainant did not complete the required mandatory formalities to settle the claim as per rules, terms and conditions of the Insurance policy in question. Due to non submission of non traceable report from Illaqa Magistrate by the complainant, the present claim file has already been closed sine die vide letter dated 03.01.2017 and already intimated to the complainant; that no deficient services have been rendered by the answering opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. The claim was immediately lodged, enquired, investigated and surveyed by the answering opposite parties, but the complainant did not cooperate itself and due to its non completion of formalities the claim has been closed. On merits, it is submitted that the claim for the said loss was partly offered upto the extent of Rs.3,49,969/- on the basis of sub standard claim in the absence of non traceable report issued by Illaqa Magistrate subject to the condition that the complainant would submit non traceable report issued by Illaqa Magistrate subsequently. But the complainant did not accept this offer and has filed the present false and frivolous complaint. It is correct upto the extent of a letter dated 03.01.2017 regarding closing of the claim. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Davinder Singh Toor, Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-16 and closed the evidence. 

5.                On the other hand, opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. P.K. Dua, Deputy Manager Ex.OPs-1 and copies of documents Ex.OPs-2 to Ex.OPs-10 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                The case of the complainant is that they were owner of tractor trolley bearing registration no.PB-29R-4813 and the same was insured with opposite parties w.e.f. 29.08.2014 to 28.08.2015. During the insurance period on 14.06.2015, the said tractor trolley was stolen. The complainant duly gave intimation regarding it to police and also to opposite parties. The police lodged the FIR regarding the said incident. The opposite parties appointed investigator to investigate the claim of the complainant. The police made their best efforts to recover the said vehicle, but failed to trace-out the same and finally on 12.11.2015 they filed non traceable report under section 173 Cr.P.C. which was duly approved by SDM Dharamkot, who recommended for the consignment of file in record room as there was no possibility to recover the vehicle. The opposite parties failed to pay the insurance value of the vehicle to complainant as insurance claim, rather they offered to pay Rs.3,49,969/- as insurance claim for the said loss, which was very less than the insured value of the i.e. Rs.4,79,007/-. The complainant was not ready to accept this amount and sent a legal notice to opposite parties to pay the actual insured value of the vehicle and in reply to that notice, opposite parties sent a letter dated 03.01.2017 with remarks that they are closing the claim sine die as no claim. All these acts of opposite parties, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.

8.                On the other hand, opposite parties admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with them and it was informed by the complainant that the said vehicle was stolen on 14.06.2015. They further admitted that the complainant informed regarding it to police who also lodged FIR. They argued that on lodging of claim, they immediately enquired, investigated and surveyed the claim of the complainant, but the complainant did not co-operate itself and due to non-completion of formalities the claim has been closed. Ld. counsel for opposite parties argued that opposite parties vide their letters demanded required documents from the complainant, but the complainant failed to submit non-traceable report from Illaqua Magistrate. Due to non submission of this document, claim of the complainant has been closed on 03.01.2017 and complainant duly intimated regarding it. They admitted that they offered the claim upto the extent of Rs.3,49,969/- on the basis of sub standard claim. In the absence of non traceable report issued by Illaqua Magistrate, 75 % of the total IDV Rs.4,79,007/-, but the complainant did not accept this offer. Ld. counsel for opposite parties argued that as the complainant did not fulfil the necessary requirements and did not submit non-traceable report approved by Illaqua Magistrate as stated, so as per terms and conditions the claim is not payable and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

9.                We have thoroughly gone the file, evidence and arguments lead by ld. counsel for the parties. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that it is wrong that the complainant did not fulfil the formalities for process of its claim. The complainant submitted all the required documents for the processing of its claim as and when desired by opposite parties. He argued that the police has already filed a non-traceable report on 12.11.2015, which is duly accepted by DSP Dharamkot, copy of the same is Ex.C-15. The said non-traceable report was approved by SDM, Dharamkot vide their letter dated 08.12.2015, copy of the same is Ex.C-16. He further argued that there is no necessity to submit non-traceable report duly approved by Illqua Magistrate. The non traceable report is to be prepared by local police. The purpose of non traceable report is only to declare by the police that they made all the efforts to recover the vehicle in question and now there is no possibility to recover the vehicle and they are closing the investigation in the case and closing the file. The police has to file this report with concerned Illqua Magistrate and there is no necessity to file the non-traceable report which is approved by Illqua Magistrate. The non-traceable report prepared and filed by the concerned police station with Illaqua Magistrate is sufficient to ascertain that vehicle in question is not traceable. The complainant has already submitted all the documents including non-traceable report prepared by police to opposite parties, but the opposite parties wrongly and illegally denied their liability to pay the claim and were escaping from their liability. Moreover, the opposite parties themselves offered the complainant to pay 75% of the Insured value in the absence of non traceable report. When if as per the version of opposite parties non traceable report is essential for the payment of claim, then how can they offer 75% of the insured value in the absence of said report. All these acts of opposite parties prove that they are not interested for the payment of full claim amount to complainant and lingering on the matter on lame excuses. He put reliance on citation 2000(1) CPR 93 (Supreme Court) 242 in case titled as M/s Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd -, whereas our Hon'ble Supreme Court  held that It is generally seen that Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline the claims. He further placed reliance on citation 2008(3)R.C.R. (Civil) Page 111 titled as New India Assurance company Ltd Vs Smt Usha Yadav & Others wherein our Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that it seems that Insurance Companies are only interested in earning premiums and find ways and means to decline the claims.

10.              From the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that opposite parties are denying their liability to pay the insurance claim of complainant on false grounds, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence the present complaint stands allowed with a direction to opposite parties to pay Rs. 4,79,007/- i.e. insured value of the vehicle in question with interest @ 9% per annum from 03.01.2017 when they closed the claim of the complainant as no claim till final realization to complainant. Further opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 20.09.2017.

 

                              (Bhupinder Kaur)                   (Vinod Bala)        (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                        Member                            Member                 President