O R D E R
BABU LAL, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle No.DL-5S U-2563 which was insured by the O.P company vide cover note No.405212 valid for the period from 06.03.2006 to 05.03.2007 for sum assured of Rs.42,650/-. Unfortunately the alleged vehicle was stolen on 03.06.2006 and accordingly FIR No.359 dated 05.06.2006 under section 379 IPC was registered at P.S. Seelampur, Delhi and accordingly the O.P office was also informed regarding the theft of the vehicle and the factum of theft was verified by the O.P officials. It is alleged that the complainant completed all the formality regarding the passing of his claim except one i.e. NOC from financed Bank as the same was not given to the complainant by the bank at that time due to pending of EMI and same has been delivered to the complainant on 06.10.2008. On 09.10.2008 after getting the NOC dated 06.10.2008 from the financed bank i.e. ICICI Bank when the complainant approached in office of the O.P for clearing his claim but official staff of O.P flatly refused to pass the claim of the complainant reason best known by the O.P and its official staff. Complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 04.11.2008 but to no avail. On these facts complainants prays that O.P be directed to pay a sum of Rs.42,650/- on account of insured amount with interest @ 24% p.a., apart from cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.P appeared and filed written statement. In its written statement, O.P has not disputed that complainant had taken policy refer to above. It is alleged that complainant informed the O.P that his aforesaid insured vehicle has been stolen on night intervening between 03-04/04/2006. The O.P appointed M/s. G.R. Garg & Associates investigators to investigate into the matter and submit its report to the O.P. Immediately after receipt of the report of the investigator the O.P had written letter dated 31.08.2006 for completion of certain formalities. It is also alleged that complainant did not responded to his letter dated 31.08.2006. It is further alleged that O.P vide letter date 20.09.2006 and subsequent reminder dated 11.10.2006 and 17.11.2006 was sent to the complainant informing him that O.P was willing to settle the claim of complainant for Rs.38,335/- subject to completion of certain formalities. It is alleged that in these letters the complainant was told that his claim has been approved for Rs.38,335/- as per terms and conditions of the policy applicable in case of theft of the vehicle. It is also alleged that in the last reminder dated 17.11.2006 that the complainant was informed that in case he does not comply with the requirement within 10 days then the file will be closed as no claim. Since the complainant did not comply with the requirements within the stipulated periods as such nothing is now payable to the complainant. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating all the facts as mentioned in the complaint. He has also filed his affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. On the other hand Sh. R.K. Mishra, Divisional Manager has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. Parties have also filed their respective written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties.
5. We have perused the record there is no dispute that the complainant had got the vehicle No.DL-5S U-2563 insured by the O.P company vide cover note No.405212 valid for the period from 06.03.2006 to 05.03.2007 for sum assured of Rs.42,650/-. There is no dispute that the complainant had lodged the claim regarding theft of the vehicle on 03.06.2006. However, case of the complainant is that the O.P asked for certain documents which were submitted to the “Chokidar” despite that O.P did not finalized the claim of the complainant. On the other hand case of the O.P is that documents asked for were not supplied by the complainant, therefore, the case was closed.
6. We have perused the record. The O.P had asked for certain documents vide letter sent to complainant dated 31.08.2006, 20.09.2006, 11.10.2006, 17.11.2006 and 28.05.2007. Copy of these letters have been placed on record by the O.P. Since, the complainant has accepted that he had submitted the documents to the “Chowkidar” of the O.P, it is clear that he had received the letters written by the O.P. However, no receipt or acknowledgment of the document by “Chowkidar” of the O.P has been placed on record by the complainant. Even in the legal notice dated 04.11.2008 served by the complainant on the O.P, there is no mention that the complainant had submitted the documents asked for by O.P in office of the O.P. Therefore, the claim of the complainant that he had submitted the documents to the “Chowkidar’ of the O.P is nothing but afterthought. In these circumstances only order which could be passed is that the complainant should be directed to submit the requisite documents asked for by the O.P and the O.P shall finalized the claim.
7. Accordingly, we direct the complainant to submit the documents asked for by the O.P in the various letter written to the complainant within a period of 30 days from receipt of this order and the O.P shall decide the claim of the complainant one way or the other within period of 30 days after receipt of the documents from the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own cost. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties by Registered post and the file be consigned to the record room thereafter.
Announced this 04th day of March, 2015.
(BABU LAL) (D.R. TAMTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
