Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1431

Krishan Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Garg

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                       First Appeal No.1431 of 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution:21.09.2011 

                                                          Date of Decision : 24.02.2015

 

 

Krishan Bansal s/o Kapoor Chand R/o Suniar Basti, Patran, Tehsil Patran, District, Patiala

 

                                                                                                                                              …..Appellant/complainant

         

                                      Versus

 

1.       Reliance General Insurance, SCO No.36-37, New Leela Bhawan          Market, Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.       Regional Office Reliance General Insurance, SCO 212-214, Ist Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandgarh.

                                                                                                                                               ..Respondent/opposite parties

 

First Appeal against order dated 26.07.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.  

Present:-

 

          For the appellant              :         None

          For the respondent :         Sh.Tejinder Joshi, Advocate

 

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                            

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

           The appellant (the complainant in the complaint)  has directed this appeal against the respondents herein (the opposite parties in the complaint) assailing the order dated 26.07.2011 of  the District Forum, Patiala, directing the complainant to comply with the requirement of the OP within a period of 10 days from the receipt of copy of the order, whereupon the OP shall pay the claim within a period of one month thereof.  The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant.

2.      The complainant Krishan Bansal has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he purchased one Hero Honda Splendor for Rs.39,000/- Model 2006 bearing Registration No.PB-72-0455, Chasis No.13906, Engine No.08639, which was insured with the OPs vide insurance policy No.2010372312101339  with claim No.2081089038. That on 06.04.2008 about 5.00 PM, the complainant locked his motorcycle and went inside his house and when he came after 15-20 minutes, his motorcycle was found stolen from there by some unknown persons. The complainant lodged the FIR regarding theft of his motorcycle, vide No.84 dated 13.05.2008 U/s 379 IPC at Police Station Patran.  The complainant lodged the insurance claim with the OPs with many documents. The insurance claim of the complainant was kept ignored by the OPs. The police also submitted untraced report of the FIR and complainant also supplied its copy to the OP in not indemnifying the complainant regarding the loss of the vehicle due to its theft. The complainant has prayed that Ops be directed to make the payment of the insurance amount of Rs.39,000/- along with interest @ 18% per month from the date of complaint till its actual payment, besides compensation of Rs.20,000/- for his mental harassment.

3.      Upon notice, OP appeared and filed the written reply averring that the OPs never refused to pay the insurance claim to the complainant. That complainant has not submitted the requisite documents to OPs i.e transfer of R.C  in the name of the insurance company, the letter of subrogation, indemnity and discharge voucher as per procedure of the company. The OPs denied any deficiency in service on its part. It was further averred that OPs undertake to pay claim of Rs.32,000/- being the insured declared value of the stolen motorcycle on submission of the documents by the complainant, as referred to above. The OPs denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of FIR Ex.C-2, copy of order passed by JMIC, Samana Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 2.7.09 Ex.C-4, copy of letter dated 15.10.2009 Ex.C-5, copy of letter dated 9.11.09 Ex.C-6, copy of letter dated 16.12.2009 Ex.C-7. As against it, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Sonkar, Manager of OP Ex.R-1, copy of two wheeler certificate cum policy schedule Ex.R-2, copy of letter of subrogation Ex.R-3, copy of discharge voucher Ex.R-4, copy of letter of indemnity Ex.R-4, copy of reminder dated 6.8.08 Ex.R-6, copy of reminder letter dated 21.5.08 Ex.R-7, copies of letter from OPs to complainant Ex.R-8 and Ex.R-9, copy of reminder letter dated 21.4.2008 Ex.R-10. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Patiala disposed of the complaint by virtue of the order dated 26.07.2011 directing the complainant to comply with the requirement of the company within a period of 10 months, whereupon the OP shall pay the insurance claim within period of one month therefrom to the complainant. The complainant is not satisfied with the order of the District Forum and carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard Learned Counsel for the respondents in this appeal as none appeared for the appellant at the  time of arguments and also examined the record of the case.

6.      We have carefully examined the pleadings of both parties in this case. It is undisputed fact that the motorcycle, which was purchased by the complainant was insured with the OPs. It is also undisputed fact that insurance policy was valid at the time of theft of the motorcycle, which was stolen on 06.04.2008 near house of the complainant. FIR No.84 dated 13.05.2008 was lodged by the complainant regarding theft of the motorcycle at Police Station, Patran. The OPs took stand that the complainant has not supplied the documents to them i.e registration certificate in the name of the OPs, subrogation, indemnity and discharge voucher due to this reason, the complaint of the complainant has been delayed.  It was submitted by counsel for the OPs that they are ready to pay the insurance claim provided the complainant makes compliance of the submission of the order of the documents to them, which are required in the procedure for settlement. 

7.      We have carefully examined the affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 on the record, Ex.C-2 is copy of the FIR, Ex.C-3 is copy of award but it is not evident in this case, Ex.C-4 is letter addressed to the Manager of the OPs by the complainant. Ex.C-5 is letter addressed to Registering Authority, Patran and Ex.C-6 is the letter addressed to the OP Branch of OP by the complainant. Ex.C-7 is also in the same contest.  OP also relied upon affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Sonkar Ex.R-1 on the record. Copy of the insurance policy Ex.R-2, letter of subrogation Ex.R-3. Unfilled discharge voucher Ex.R-4, unfilled letter of indemnity Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6 to Ex.R-10 on the record.

8.      Considering the above referred documents on the record and the submissions, we find that OPs have not denied the payment of the insurance claim amount according to its insured declared value of the vehicle to the complainant. Pre-condition of the OPs, is the submission of the documents, as discussed above to be supplied by the complainant to them. So considering the facts and circumstances of the case, order of the District Forum is quite sustainable in this case. The District Forum gave the direction to the complainant to comply with the requirement of submission of the documents to the OPs within period of 10 days from the date of the receipt of copy of this order, whereupon the OPs would pay the insurance claim amount to the complainant within a period of one month thereform. We find no illegality in the order of the District Forum under challenge in this appeal.

9.      In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and the order of the District Forum is slightly modified to this extent that in case there is still dispute between the parties, then the compliance of submission of the documents by the complainant and payment of the insurance claim by the OPs to complainant shall be made in the presence of the District Forum, Patiala. The appeal, thus, stands dismissed.

10.     Arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

11.     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                          MEMBER

 

February 24  2015.                                                                  

(ravi)