Punjab

Sangrur

CC/458/2017

Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raj Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.P.S.Mann

05 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    458

                                                Instituted on:      07.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       05.02.2018

 

Ramesh Kumar aged about 41 years son of Ram Kumar Sharma, resident of Purani Anaj Mandi, Sangrur, now residing at Mehal Mubarak Colony, Street No.3, Near the House of Ripudaman, President, Municipal Council, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Raj Vehicles Private Limited, Mehlan Road, Sangrur through its Manager.

2.             The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: 126, Chhoti Bardari, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri P.S.Mann, Adv.

For OP No.2              :       Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

For OP NO.1             :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Ramesh Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant got insured his Mahindra Balero Camper Gold car bearing registration number PB-13-AL-7137 from OP number 2 through OP number 1 for Rs.6,29,016/- by paying the requisite premium of Rs.20073/- for the period from 03.05.2015 to 02.05.2016 vide cover note number 665435.  It is further averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle in question was stolen on the intervening night of 19/20.11.2015, when the vehicle was parked at Patiala Gate, Sangrur and when in the morning the complainant came to see his vehicle, then he was shocked to see that it was not there and he tried his best to find out the vehicle, when the same was not found, he immediately got lodged FIR number 338 dated 21.11.2015 with the PS City Sangrur.  Thereafter the complainant handed over all the documents to the OP number 2 and lodged the claim, the OP number 2 did not settle the claim saying that the untraced report and second key of the vehicle was not submitted to it. It is further averred that the police of PS City Sangrur filed untraced report before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrte, Sangrur, a copy of the order dated 10.9.2016 has also been produced on record.  It is stated further that though the complainant wrote so many letters to the OPs and submitted documents for settlement of the claim, but the claim was not settled.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.6,29,016/-  along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such was proceeded exparte.

 

3.             In reply of the complaint by OP number 2, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, that the complaint is false and baseless, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.  It is stated that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insured was bound to give a notice in writing to the company upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require and in case of theft.  On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP under the policy in question.  Further case of the OP is that the complainant has not intimated about the non submission of the untraced report by the police.  It is stated further that the complainant has failed to provide the untraced report to the OP number 2.  As such, it is stated that the claim has rightly been declared as ‘no claim’ as the complainant did not submit the untraced report to the OP. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 2  has produced Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.Op2/18 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his vehicle in question with the OP number 2 for Rs.6,29,016/-, as is evident from the copy of the insurance cover note which is on record as Ex.C-4 and it further reveals that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.20073/- as premium for comprehensive insurance.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question was stolen on the intervening night of 19/20.11.2015 when the vehicle in question was parked at Patiala Gate, Sangrur, of which FIR number 338 dated 21.11.2015 was recorded in PS City Sangrur, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-6.  However, in the present case, the dispute is only about the non submission of the documents as well as untraced report by the complainant with the OP number 2.  Whereas, the case of the complainant is that he has already submitted the untraced report to the OP, as is evident from the copy of the untraced report, which is on record as Ex.C-8.  But, on the other hand, the stand of the OP number 2 is that the complainant has not submitted the required documents for settlement of the claim. We have perused the copy of letter dated 30.8.2016, Ex.OP2/10 whereby the OP has intimated the complainant that since he has failed to submit the untraced report only, as such his claim was repudiated as ‘no claim’.  But, now the fact remains that the vehicle in question of the complainant was stolen and the Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the untraced report, a copy of which is on record as Ex.C-8 and the copy of the same has also been provided to the OP number 2.  Now, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OP number 2 is directed to settle the claim of the complainant in view of the submission of the document i.e. untraced report which has already been provided to the OP number 2, meaning thereby all the documents required for settlement of the claim has been provided to the OP number 2.

 

 

 

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 2 to settle the claim of the complainant and the decision whatsoever be intimated to the complainant within a period of thirty days from the receipt of copy of this order by registered post. It is made clear that if the complainant still remains unsatisfied with the decision of the OP number 2, then he is at liberty to approach this Forum again.

 

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        February 5, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member