BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/10/663 of 12.8.2010 Decided on: 16.9.2011 Ominder Pal Kaur w/o Jagmohan Singh Bindra R/o H.No.111, Street No.1-A, Guru Nanak Nagar, Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus United India Assurance Company Ltd, through its Senior Divisional Manager,Leela Bhawan, Patiala. ----------Opposite party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Dinesh Sharma, Advocate For opposite party: Sh.K.C.Gupta, Advocate ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT The complainant got his vehicle i.e. the scooter make LML Vespa bearing registration No.PB 11J 0594 insured comprehensively with the op for the period 23.1.2009 to 22.1.2010. 2. On 12.8.2009, the said scooter of the complainant was stolen when the husband of the complainant had gone to Gurudwara Dukhniwaran Sahib to pay obeisance and when he failed to find the scooter at the place where it was parked, at this the husband of the complainant lodged the report with the police of P.S.Tripuri on 13.8.2009 and informed the op regarding the same on 17.8.2009 and in respect of FIR No.308 dated 20.9.2008 was registered. 3. The complainant furnished all the documents to the ops for thesettlement of her claim. The husband of the complainant also approached the op many a times for the settlement of the claim.The op assured to disburse the amount of the insurance claim. However after some time the op demanded the duplicate R.C. and key of the scooter.The complainant got the dubliate RC issued by theDTO,Patiala andhanded over the same alongwith the key of the scootere to the op on 21.4.2010. 4. Thereafter the op demanded a non traceability certificate and the complainant with greate difficulity obtained the same from the police and handed over the same to the op. 5. Thereafter the complainant had been approaching the op for getting the insurance claim reimbursed but every time she was put off under one or the other pretext and ultimately the op a date before the filing of the complaint refused to pay the genuine claim of the complainant under the pretext that the non traceability certificate was issued by the police was not signed by the DSP. The complainant disclosed that he could not get the untraceability signed by the DSP .Describing the acvt of the op in not having disbursedthe claim as a deficiency of service on the part of the op the complainant has approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act). 6. On notice, the op appeared and filed the written version having raised certain legal objections, interalia, that the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the complaintof the complainant is pre mature as the claim of the complainant is under process and the op is awaiting the l legal termination of the police investigation and that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous.As regards the facts of the complaint, it is admitted by the op that the complainant had obtained the insurance policy No.11100631080100008885 in respect of vehicle No.PB 11J 0594 for Rs.5000/- for the period 23.1.2009 to 22.10.2010. The loss in respect of the said vehicle had been reported by the complainant to the op. The claim was under process and was pending because of the deficiency on the part of the complainant in supplying the desired documents demanded vide letters dated 6.7.2010, 19.8.2010 and 1.9.2010.Thus the complaint is premature. On these grounds the op contested the claim of the complainant and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. 7. In support of his case the complainant produced in evidence,Ex.C1 his sworn affidavit, alongwith Ex.C2 the sworn affidavit of Jagmohan Singh Bindra and the documents,Exs.C3 to C8 and his learned counsel closed the evidence. 8. On the other hand, on behalf of the op, its learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Uma Dhir of the op alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R5 and closed its evidence. 9. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the lerned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record. 10. Ex.R3, is the copy of the letter dated 6.7.2010 written by the Branch Manager of the op to the complainant having informed him that the non traceability report submitted by him had not been signed by the DSP/Class 1 officer and accordingly the complainant was asked to get the same signed from the DSP or Class 1 officer of the concerned police station. She was also required to submit NCRB report at the earliest.The op again issued the reminders,Exs.R4 dated 19.8.2010 and R5 dted 1.9.2010 in this regard to the complainant. 11. It was submitted by Sh.Dinesh Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant had submitted the un traceability certificate,Ex.C5, before the op and the same is very clearly disclosed that the stolen scooter make Vespa no.PB 11J 0954 in respect of which FIR no.308 dated 20.9.2010 under Section 179 IPC was lodged with P.S.Tripuri ,Patiala was not traceable, in respect of which cancellation report was filed but the same was pending approval. Nothing more had to have been done eityer by the complainant or the police. The acceptance of the untraceability/cancellation report by the Court of the Ilqua Magistrate is only the formality and it some times takes time but the op is not concerned with the same. 12. On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh.K.C.Gupta, the learned counsel for the op that the complainant was oblighed to produce NCRB report so as to show that the factum regading theft of the scooter was brought to the notice of the NCRB. 13. We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that op was not justified in having repudiating the claim of the complainant on theflimsy grounds that the untraceability report be got signed from the DSP/Class-1 officer of the concerned police station because it was for the op to have pointed out the very requirement of the same under the law under the rules but no such provisions contained in this regard under the court of criminal procedure or the Punjab Plice rules was pointed out by the learned counsel for the op. 14. When the concerned police of P.S.Triputi has submitted the non traceability report of the schooter concerning theFIR No.308 of 20.8.2009 under Sectipn 179 IPC, it was sufficient for the op to have reimbursed the claim of the complainant because the acceptance of untraceability report/cancellation report has nothing to do in the disbursement of the claim by the op. Consequehntly we do not approve of the plea taken up by the op that the claim of the complainant is still pending and the complaint is premature. In other words it amounts to the negotiative of the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds.Accordingly, we accept the complaint and give a direction to the op to disburse the claim of Rs.5000/- in respect of the insurance of the scooter in terms of the insurance policy,Ex.R2 within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order. Taking into account the fact that the complainant had submitted the untraceabilikty report before the op and the disbursement of the claim was delayed by the op unauthorizedly thereby having caused the harassment to the complainant, we accept the complaint with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-.The complainant is also awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him because of the op having not settled the claim in time. The ops disburse the said amount to the complainant within one on receipt of the certified copy of the order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the same with interest @9% per annum from the date of the order till realization qua claim amount and the amount of the compensation. Pronounced. Dated:16.9.2011 Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member President
| | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. D.R.Arora, PRESIDENT | , | | 
