Haryana

Kurukshetra

154/2016

Mahipal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

Rohtash Jangam

17 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                Complaint no. 154/16.

                                                Date of instt.  30.5.16.

                                              Date of Decision 17.1.18.

 

Mahipal Singh Rana son of B.S. Rana, resident of H.No.A003, Ansal City, Sector-32, Kurukshetra.      

       

                                                                                                                                                        …….complainant

                          Vs.

 

National Insurance Company Limited, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ….OP.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before:              Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

       Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member.

       Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member,

                       

Present:       Sh. Rohtash Jangam, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. R.K.Singhal, Adv. for the Op.

 

ORDER:

 

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Mahipal Singh Rana against National Insurance Company Limited, opposite party.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is registered owner of a car bearing registration No.HR-26U-0018 and the same was insured with the Op vide policy bearing No.35101031126131206044 for the period w.e.f. 17.5.2012 to 16.5.2013. On 6.12.2012 the complainant was coming from village Bajghera to Kurukshetra and while on the way at about 6:15 P.M. the complainant stopped his car for taking the wine and when he returned to his car two persons came suddenly and pushed the complainant in the car and after taking keys took the control of the car and threatened the complainant that if he makes noise and agitate, then they will kill him. Under the apprehension of the threat to life, the complainant did not make any hue and cry and they started moving the car and after taking U turn from Deenapur area, they went towards paprawat and the complainant was thrown out from the car. These persons also two mobile phones, cash Rs.9000/-, pass port, voting card, cheque book of HDFC Bank, Canara Bank and SBI Bank; that the second key of the car was also lying in the dashboard of the car which is also gone with the car. In addition to this certain important peers with regard to properties, RC of the car and insurance particulars were also taken by those person as these documents were lying in the car. The complainant reported the matter to the police on the same day upon which FIR No.279 dated 6.12.2012 under Section 382, 365, 392, 34 IPC was registered against the above said persons. Besides informing to the police authorities, the complainant gave intimation to the OP on 21.12.2012 and stated the entire happening to the concerned officials of the insurance company but instead of processing the genuine claim, the OP lost the case file of the complainant and shown their negligent attitude towards genuine claim of the complainant. The complainant visited the office of the OP many a times and requested to pay the insured amount but the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 6.4.2015 on false and illegal grounds. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Op. Hence, the present complaint was moved by the complainant claiming the insured amount of Rs.3,17,037/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                   Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts and as such he is not entitled to any relief. The true and real facts are that on 6.12.2012 an FIR No.270 of 2012 was registered under Section 382/365/342 IPC and thereafter during investigation, the offence under Section 392 IPC was added in the said FIR and the case was got investigated by the police and on receipt of intimation regarding the occurrence, the answering OP also deputed the surveyor, who contacted the complainant time and again and asked him to supply the necessary documents and to show the location of incident but the complainant had not cooperated with the investigator, whereas it was the duty of the complainant to cooperate with the investigator. Ultimately, the investigator had independently investigated the matter but no clue was found about the occurrence in question. The insured had violated the terms and a condition of the policy of insurance by not cooperating with the investigator and as such, the claim was not payable. The culprits were arrested by the police and the complainant was called in police station, who had identified the boys in the police station and had made statement before the police but later on, during the trial of the case, the complainant was examined as witness in the court and he had refused to identify the accused, who had committed the offence; that the complainant had specifically refused regarding his visit to the police station on 31.1.2015 and 6.3.2015 and to identify the accused, who robbed his car and the statement of complainant was recorded in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 22.6.2015 and it was held by the court that Mahipal Singh Rana did not support the prosecution version and despite both the accused have been shown to him. Thus, it is clear that the complainant had resiled his earlier statement and he came to the rescue of the accused, which prima facie shows that the insured had colluded with the culprits and had cooperated them and had become instrumental in the acquittal of the accused from the court of law. The accused had concealed the true facts and had mis-representated the facts and as such, the claim if not payable and the claim of the complainant was closed as “No Claim” and intimation was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 13.4.2016. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.            Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.            No doubt, the complainant has failed to pin point about the culprits who snatched the car from him. But the stand of the complainant is clear that he could not see the culprits. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant has failed to get the conviction of the accused intentionally. Rather, due to certain reason that he could not identify the culprits, so he failed to support the prosecution version.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the OP is directed to make the payment of Rs.3,17,037/- to the complainant within a period of 60 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be initiated against the OP and in that case the complainant is entitled to the simple interest @ 6% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.3,17,37/- to the complainant from the date of order till its payment. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

                 Copy of this order; be communicated to the parties.

Announced:             

Dt. 17.1.2018.   

                                                     (G.C.Garg)

                                                       President,

District Consumer Disputes                                Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

       (Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)             (Viraj Pahil)

          Member                                 Member