BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

C.P. Chaudhary (now deceased) through his wife Smt. Satya Chaudhary,  r/o #1213, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.  Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, SCO Np 212-214,Ist Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.

2.  Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 570, Naigaum Cross Road, Next to Royal Industrial Estate, Wadala (W) Mumbai-400031, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL                  PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                    MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. P.B. Vasudeva, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Hitender Kansal,proxy for Sh. Paras Money Goyal Adv. for OPs.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT_

             Succinctly put, Shri C.P. Chaudhary (now deceased) was the absolute and sole owner of Maruti Esteem Car bearing Registration No. CH-01W-0136 which was insured with the OPs Company for the period 18.12.2007 to 17.12.2008 for Rs.1,00,000/-. The said car was stolen on the intervening night of 20/21.01.2008 and the FIR No.15 dated 21.01.2008 regarding the same was lodged with the police. The claim was filed with the OPs Company on 30.01.2008 seeking indemnification of the loss.  The OPs Company appointed investigator who visited the house of the complainant for assessment of the loss and all the requisite documents, information were provided to the surveyor. On 01.02.2008, the registered owner of the vehicle Shri C.P Chaudhary died. The affidavit of legal heirs of the deceased and all other requisite documents including untraced report by the police were also provided to the OPs Company, for clearance of the claim in question but till date despite number of written requests and visits by the legal heirs of Shri C.P. Chaudhary, to the office of the OPs Company, the OPs have failed to indemnify the loss. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs Company amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs. In their written reply the the OPs admitted the factual matrix of the case and submitted that the loss was intimated to them after a period of 10 days, resultantly, the OPs Company was deprived of getting the matter investigated at the very first instance and ascertain the true cause of loss.  It was further submitted that the legal heirs of the complainant have not complied with the formalities, in order to enable the insurance company, to process the claim as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The insurance policy and RC was in the name of C.P. Chaudhary, who has died and as per the condition no. 9 of the insurance policy and Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989:56., the OPs Company could proceed further with the claim only if the legal heirs would give the ‘legal heirs certificate’ and also get the policy and RC transferred in their names. Hence, the necessary requirements were still to be complied within order by the legal heirs of the Shri C.P. Chaudhary to enable the OPs Company to proceed further with the claim.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OPs pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.             There is no dispute about it that the vehicle was owned by C.P. Chaudhary (now deceased) it was insured with the OP and was stolen on the intervening night of 20/21.01.2008, when C.P. Chaudhary was alive.  It is alleged that C.P. Chaudhary submitted the insurance claim to the OP Company on 30.01.2008 but no document with respect to that has been produced.  The OP rather produced motor claim form, showing that Satya Chaudhary, wife of C.P.Chaudhary submitted the claim form to the OP on 04.04.2008.  Certainly, on the theft of the vehicle on 20/21.01.2008, C.P. Chaudhary became entitled to the insurance claim and after his death his legal heirs would be entitled to the same.

6.             Annexure C-4 is the letter dated 20.05.2008, issued by the OP asking the complainant to submit second original key, income tax return and affidavit of legal heir.  The same was submitted by Satya Chaudhary on 14.08.2008 vide Annexure C-5.  The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that a copy of the RC was demanded from the complainant but the same was not submitted due to which payment of the claim was delayed, cannot be accepted as correct because these were only the three documents which were asked for, from the complainant vide Annexure C-4 and the same have since been submitted. It is not the case of the OP, if there was no copy of the registration with the complainant because in that case the insurance policy would not have been issued by the OP.  It appears, that is why the OP did not demand copy of registration vide Annexure C-4.  The payment of compensation therefore could not be held on any such ground.

7.             It is also argued by the Learned Counsel for the OP that the vehicle is to be retransferred in favour of the OP and only thereafter the payment of the amount is to be made to the complainant.  It may be mentioned that the complainant is only to furnish the requisite documents such as application in the prescribed from, affidavit etc., to the transferee and it is the duty of the transferee to get the vehicle transferred in its favour.  The OP shall therefore ask for the necessary forms/affidavits and indemnity bond within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, which shall thereafter be furnished by the complainant.  The OP shall make the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. since 4.05.2008(one month after submission of the claim form) till the amount is paid to the complainant alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.  If the amount is not paid within the aforesaid time, the OP would be liable to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical harassment caused by them to the widow of deceased C.P. Chaudhary by unnecessarily delaying the payment of the said amount.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.