DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 86 of 2010 Date of Institution: 03.02.2010 Date of Decision: 01.10.2015.
s/o Shri Asgar, R/o Village Dhana, Tehsil Ferozejpur Jhirka, District Mewat. Abbas
……Complainant.
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, Ground Floor, Palm Court, Near MDI Chowk, Gurgaon through its General Manager/Authorized Person.
..Opposite party
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.K.Mittal, Adv for the complainant.
Sh. N.K.Kalra, Adv for the opposite party.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he got his Motorcycle bearing Regd. No.HR-28-B-0434 insured with the opposite party vide Policy No.1304072312038977 which was valid from 27.01.2008 to 26.01.2009. On 28.11.2008 he parked his motorcycle in front of the house of Chaudhary Mohd. Illyas, MLA, Punhana in the night but when he work up early in the morning on 29.11.2008 he found his motorcycle missing. He immediately informed the police and in this regard FIR No. 377 dated 29.11.2008 u/s 379 IPC, P.S. Punhana, District Mewat was registered. However, police failed to recover the vehicle and filed Untrace Report on 28.03.2009. He also informed the opposite party regarding the theft of the vehicle. He submitted the claim with the opposite party but the opposite party did not reimburse the claim till date. Thus, the opposite party was deficient in providing services to the complainant. He prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay the insured amount to the complainant along with interest @ 18 % p.a. He also claimed compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for harassment and mental agony. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2 OP in its written reply has alleged that the as per the version of the complainant, his motorcycle was stolen on 28.11.2008 and in this regard FIR No.377 dated 29.11.2008 P.S.Punhana was also registered but no claim has been lodged by the complainant with the opposite party. The documents supplied by the complainant also do not show that the claim has been lodged by the complainant. However, the complainant has not lodged any formal complaint before the opposite party and thus, the case of the complainant is not a case of repudiation. The matter is still open and can be considered if the necessary documents are submitted to the opposite party under the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that he got his Motorcycle bearing Regd. No.HR-28-B-0434 insured with the opposite party vide Policy No.1304072312038977 which was valid from 27.01.2008 to 26.01.2009. During the subsistence of the insurance policy i.e. on 28.11.2008 he parked his motorcycle in front of the house of Chaudhary Mohd. Illyas, MLA, Punhana in the night but when he work up early in the morning on 29.11.2008 he found his motorcycle missing. He immediately informed the police and in this regard FIR No. 377 dated 29.11.2008 u/s 379 IPC, P.S. Punhana, District Mewat was registered. Police also filed Untrace Report on 28.03.2009. He also informed the opposite party regarding the theft of the vehicle and submitted the claim with the opposite party but of no use. On the aforesaid allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
5 However, the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not lodged any claim with the opposite party regarding the alleged theft and thus, his complaint is premature.
6 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that the complainant has never approached opposite party for redressal of his grievances regarding alleged loss of the insured vehicle. It is also evident that complainant never lodged any claim with the opposite party so much so no intimation was ever given to the opposite party and thus, in absence of the same the complaint of the complainant is premature in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP No. 580 of 2006 decided on 15.04.2010 titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs M/s Pragathi Construction. Therefore, we direct the complainant to submit the claim with the opposite party–the insurance company with the relevant documents within 15 days and then opposite party to process the claim of the complainant within 45 days. If complainant is dissatisfied with the decision of the opposite party then complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for redressal of his grievances, if any. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
01.10.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
