Complainant Bir Bahadur Rana vide the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) has prayed for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to release the insurance claim amount in his favour on account of stolen vehicle and also directed to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to him on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased one vehicle i.e. Tavera (Olympic White Colour) bearing Chassis No.MA6AB605 BAH 102303, Engine No.3BK102806, Model 2010 bearing Registration No.PB-01-8387 from opposite party no.1 for earning his exclusive livelihood by way of self-employment as his son was jobless and without any work and the abovesaid vehicle got insured with the opposite parties no.2 & 3. He has further pleaded that unfortunately his vehicle was stolen on 27.8.2010 at Pathankot. Thereafter, he tried his best to trace out the vehicle but of no use. He reported the matter to the Police Station Division No.2 Pathankot and F.I.R. bearing no.113 dated 31.12.2009 U/S 379 I.P.C. was registered in Police Station Division No.2 Pathankot. Thereafter, he started approaching the opposite parties and made written request to the opposite parties regularly and completed all the formalities and submitted all the requisite documents alongwith copy of F.I.R. as per instruction of the opposite parties. The original policy bearing No.35250031100100000038 of the vehicle was also handed over to the opposite parties which are still in the possession of the opposite parties but instead of that the opposite parties always procrastinating the matter pending with one pretext or the other. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their separate written replies. Opposite party no.1 filed their reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party and the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and the present complaint is entirely based on false and frivolous averments. On merits, it was admitted that Tavera bearing registration No.PB-01-8387, Model 2010, Engine No.3 BK 102806 was sold by the opposite party. The vehicle was insured with the opposite parties no.2 and 3 and after the sale of the vehicle and handing over to the purchaser, the opposite party has nothing to do with the act of the parties. Other allegations of the complainant have been denied and specifically controverted.  Lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.       Opposite parties No.2 & 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply by taking the preliminary objections to the effect that complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum; the complaint is without any cause of action, hence liable to be dismissed; the present application is hopelessly time barred and the present complaint is entirely based on false and frivolous averments and the complainant is not the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it was denied that the complainant has purchased one vehicle i.e. Tavera (Olympic White Colour) bearing Chassis No.MA6AD605 BAH 102303, Engine No.3BK102806, Model 2010 bearing Registration No.PB-01-8387 from opposite party no.1 for earning his exclusive livelihood by way of self-employment as his son was jobless and without any work. The complainant is not the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Actually, the complainant intimated to the opposite party on 03.09.2010 regarding theft of his vehicle on 27/28/08/2010. There after the opposite party deputed Mr.S.D.Bhalla M/s.S.A. Investigating and Consulting  Agency Pathankot to investigate the case of opposite party. Mr.S.D.Bhalla M/S.S.A. Investigating and Consulting Agency, Pathankot has submitted his report on 12.12.2010 to the opposite party. Thereafter the opposite party written letter dated 25.01.2011 to complainant for submitting final investigation report and non traceable report of NCRB, but the complainant failed to submit non traceable report of NCRB. Thereafter the opposite party written two letters dated 2.5.2011 to complainant for submitting verification report of R.C. and Route Permit and non traceable report of NCRB, but the complainant failed to submit non traceable report of NCRB. Thereafter, the opposite party written letter dated 11.07.2011 to complainant for submitting copy of untraced report dated 28.12.2010 alongwith its translation and certificate regarding date of FIR, but the complainant failed to submit same. Thereafter the opposite party written letter dated 17.8.2011 to complainant for submitting final untraced report from Judicial Magistrate Ist class but the complainant failed to submit same. Thereafter the opposite party written final surveyor final reminder letter dated 28.10.2011 to complainant for submitting final untraced report from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class within 15 days of the receipt of this letter failing which the opposite party close the file, but the complainant failed to submit the same. Thereafter the opposite parties close the file of the complainant for non submission of documents. The delay in filing the complaint is intentional and willful. The applicant has taken vague and unrealistic ground in this application. There is no reasonable explanation by the complainant for filing this complaint after delay of more than 100 days. The present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not disclosed whether at the time of withdrawing the previous complaint the Hon’ble Forum has granted any permission to the complainant to file the fresh complaint on same grounds or not.  Other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and controverted.

5.       Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CI and of Arjan Saini Ex.C2 along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C2 to Ex C8 and closed the evidence.

6.        On the other hand, opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Puneet Sharma Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence.

7.        Sh.Shiv Lal, Branch Manager of opposite parties no.2 & 3 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP10 and closed the evidence.

8.     We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.     From the pleadings and evidence on record it is an admitted case of both the parties that the complainant purchased vehicle Tavera (Olympic White Colour) bearing Chassis No.MA6AB605 BAH 102303, Engine No.3BK102806, Model 2010 from opposite party no.1 and got the same insured with the opposite parties no.2 & 3. The said vehicle was stolen on 27.8.2010 at Pathankot. As per the complainant he informed the police and the insurance company and even submitted all the requisite documents to the company opposite parties no.2 & 3 for the release of his insurance claim.

10.     On the other hand, the case of the opposite parties no.2 & 3 is that after getting intimation from the complainant on 3.9.2010 regarding the theft of vehicle, the opposite party deputed Mr.S.D.Bhalla M/s.S.A.Investigating & Consulting Agency, Pathankot to investigate the matter, who even submitted his report on 12.12.2010 to the opposite parties. Thereafter the opposite parties No.2 & 3 has written letters for submitting of requisite documents i.e. untraceable report, NCRB report, R/C verification, Route Permit etc. but the complainant failed to submit the same. That last final reminder letter dated 28.10.2011 for submission of documents was also sent but the complainant did not submit the documents and as such the opposite party closed the file for non submission of documents.

11.     From the entire above discussion, we find that the present complaint is premature as the opposite parties no.2 & 3 (against whom the relief is sought) has yet not finally decided the fate of insurance claim of the complainant. The process of insurance claim was stopped by opposite parties no.2 & 3 for non-submission of the requisite documents by the complainant as such without expressing our opinion on the merits of the case, we find that this is a fit case which can be disposed off by giving directions to the parties and as such we direct the complainant to approach the opposite party alongwith all the requisite documents in his possession within a period of 15 days from the date of receiving the copy of order. The opposite party is also directed to decide the claim of the complainant and convey the same to him within 30 days from the receipt of documents from the complainant.  

12.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                              

      (Naveen Puri)

                                                                          President   

Announced:                                                 (Jagdeep Kaur)

March 20, 2015                                                     Member

*MK*