Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant Sawinder Singh has filed the present complaint under Section  12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called   as 'the Act') against Claim Incharge, Motor OD Claims, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Corporation Office: Sundaram Towers, 45 & 46 Whites Road, Chennai and others (Opposite parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties with prayer to direct the opposite parties to accept the insurance claim of the complainant and to grant/ release the insurance claim pertaining to theft of insured car/ vehicle of the complainant bearing its registration No. PB-46-N-8997, chassis No. MAJ1XXMRJ1DU72921 and Engine No. DU72921 to the complainant immediately without any further delay and without any prejudice and to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages and compensation on account of harassment.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was owner of one car make FORD Model FIGO-1.4. TITANIUM bearing its Registration No.PB-46-N-8997 bearing its Chassis No.MAJ1XXMRJ1DU72921 and Engine No.DU72921. The opposite party No.4 is authorized agent of opposite parties No.1 &2 and the opposite party No.4 being authorized agent approached to the complainant and allured him to get insured his above mentioned Ford Figo Car. On 19.04.2013, the opposite party No.4 had insured the vehicle/car bearing its registration No.PB-46-N-8997 of the complainant on behalf of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 and issued the copy of policy/ cover note on same day. The above said vehicle was insured by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 vide policy bearing No.FOP1026440 (FOP1026440000100). The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the damages and compensation to the complainant for any kind of mis-happening, road accident and even in case of theft. Unfortunately, on 15.10.2013, the complainant had parked the above said car Ford Figo outside of his house and the complainant was present in his house, when after some time the complainant came outside from his house and found that his car/vehicle was missing from the spot where he parked the same and same was stolen by someone. The complainant tried his level best to trace out his above said car/ vehicle, but the same is not traced out inspite of his best efforts. Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the opposite party No.3 [Vehicle Dealer] regarding the theft of his above said vehicle/Car. The opposite party No.3 stated to the complainant that he had to bring non-traceable report from the police. On this, the complainant reported the matter to the Police Station City Tarn Taran. On the application of the complainant, investigation was conducted regarding the theft of above said Vehicle/Car of the complainant by the S.H.O Police Station City Tarn Taran vide Consolidated F.I.R. No.102/2013 dated 16.04.2013, Under Section 379 I.PC Police Station City Tarn Taran registered against unknown persons. Thereafter, the complainant waited for the result of the investigation by the police and then after few months when the complainant got the report from the police i.e. on 18.01.2014, the complainant again requested to opposite party No.3 i.e. Vehicle dealer to get his claim, but the opposite party No.3 did not bother to pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. On this, the complainant reported this matter to his seniors and due to the intervention of his seniors, the complainant finally successful in getting the number of claim i.e. FC00025562 dated 02.04.2014. In the month of January, 2014, Shri Jasbir Singh Surveyor of opposite parties No.1 and 2 approached to the complainant and asked the complainant to handover all the original/relevant documents pertaining to the above said insured car of the complainant and on this, the complainant handed over all the original/ relevant documents pertaining to the above said insured Car to Shri Jasbir Singh Surveyor and he also made local enquiry regarding the theft of above said Car of the complainant and on completion of enquiry, he assured the complainant that complainant will get his insurance claim within short span of time i.e. within one month. In the month of November, 2014, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 again demanded original ignition keys of above said insured car and other documents from the complainant and the same were submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties No.1 & 2. The complainant also submitted other documents time to time as and when required by the opposite parties No.1 &2.  After further investigation in the above said F.I.R, the police of P.S. City Tarn Taran again issued untraceable report of the above said Vehicle/Car of the complainant under the signature of Shri Baljinder Singh ASI of P.S City Tarn Taran and the same was handed over to the complainant on 18.09.2015. Since the theft of above said insured car of the complainant, the complainant made several requests to opposite parties/respondents for grant/ release of insurance claim qua the above said insured car to the complainant but of no avail. The complainant  through his counsel served a legal notice to the opposite parties on 31.03.2016 through registered A.D post and same was replied by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vide reply dated 4.5.2016 in which it was admitted by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 that insurance policy No.FOP1026440 (FOP1026440000100) was issued by opposite parties No.1 & 2 and further it was admitted that claim pertaining to above said insured car was already intimated to opposite parties/respondent No. 1 & 2 but through that reply opposite parties No.1 &2 again demanded documents which were already submitted by the complainant much prior to the reply dated 4.5.2016. In reply of the legal notice dated 4.5.2016, it was mentioned that complainant has intimated the claim to the opposite parties No.1 & 2 only on 2.4.2015 but further it was also mentioned that after receipt of the claim they had appointed an investigator and on further scrutiny of the document, they had requested the insured seeking for few documents in their letters date 14.7.2014, 3.9.2014, 15.4.2015, & 12.6.2015. Now the question arises if complainant has intimated the claim to the opposite parties No.1 & 2 only on 2.4.2015 then why/how they issued letter dated 14.7.2014 & 3.9.2014. So, it is crystal clear that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are harassing the complainant and are lingering on the matter under one pretext of the other. Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite parties.

3        Notice issued to the opposite parties and the opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and has filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable either in facts or in law as the complainant had intimated about the theft of the insured vehicle very belatedly i.e. five (5) Months after the loss and further has not submitted the documents as requested by the answering opposite parties in order to determine the admissibility of the claim. The opposite parties have neither accepted nor rejected liability in respect of the present claim but only sought for documents/clarification from the complainant in respect of the claim. There is no specific dispute for adjudication before this Forum and the present complaint is frivolous and premature and without bona-fide cause of action. The complainant had taken a private car package policy for his Ford Figo1.4 Titanium vide policy No. FOP1026440 for the period of insurance from 19.04.2013 to 18.4.2014 from the opposite parties, subject to terms and conditions therein. The complainant had intimated to the opposite parties about theft to the subject insured vehicle which had happened on 15.10.2013 only on 2.4.2014 i.e. nearly six months after the loss had occurred. Immediately following the intimation, a theft-claims process letter dated 4.4.2014 was sent to the complainant explaining the procedure for settlement of theft claims and also appointment of investigator for coordination with the complainant. The opposite parties had appointed claims investigator M/s Royal Associates to investigate the facts and circumstances of theft. The investigator, thereafter submitted his investigation report date 28.6.2014 to the opposite parties. As per the investigator, the complainant had left one key of the vehicle in the dashboard at the time of theft. The opposite parties sought for the necessary claim documents from the complainant in order to proceed further with the claim vide letter dated 14.07.2014, and thereafter vide letter dated 03.09.2014.  The complainant sent a letter to the opposite parties clarifying on reason for delayed intimation, wherein he has admitted that though the dealer was informed, the intimation to the opposite parties was not given immediately after the theft. The opposite parties sent a further reminder letter for pending documents to be submitted by the complainant vide letter dated 15.04.2015.  The complainant still did not submit the pending documents, a final reminder was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 12.06.2015 requesting for the documents yet to be submitted. Instead of responding to the reasonable request of the opposite parties for submission of necessary documents for processing the claim further, the complainant has filed this premature, frivolous and vexatious complaint, it is submitted as per policy condition No.1, the insured is required to provide all necessary information and assistance to the complaint event of claim under the policy. The said policy condition is reproduced hereunder for the kind reference of this Forum:

1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental Loss or Damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the Insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require.

In the present instance, neither immediate intimation was given to the opposite parties nor the complainant has submitted the requisite documents in order to proceed further with the claim.  Due observance and fulfillment of policy terms in respect of anything to be complied by the insured is a condition precedent for any claim to be admissible under the policy. The relevant condition is reproduced hereunder for the kind reference of this Forum

8. The due observance and fulfillment of the Terms, Conditions and Endorsements of this policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be Conditions precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under this Policy.

The complainant has acted in a very negligent and casual manner in respect of the subject claim and only intimated this opposite party after nearly six months of the date of loss. Further, the complainant’s explanation regarding intimation given to the dealer cannot be acceptable as the complainant is duty bound to give intimation directly to the insurance company and not through any agent. Even otherwise, the complainant ought to have checked within reasonable time whether these opposite parties have been intimated of the loss or not. However, the complainant has waited for five months before checking whether the opposite parties have registered a claim or not, even as per the admission of the complainant. Due to the aforesaid delay by the complainant, the opposite parties have been deprived of an opportunity to conduct a proper investigation and assist in recovery of the vehicle. Without prejudice to the above said, it is further submitted that, as per the complainant’s version to the surveyor, one key was left in the vehicle’s dashboard at the time of theft, which appears to be a gross negligence on the part of the complainant in taking proper precaution to safeguard the vehicle from loss. The said conduct of the complainant is also a violation of policy condition No.4 reproduced here under for the kind reference of this Forum.

4. The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the  Private Car form Loss or Damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the Private Car or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the Private Car shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further Damage or Loss and if the Private Car be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the Damage or any further Damage to the Private Car Shall be entirely at the Insured as own risk.

The present complaint is not maintainable either in facts or in law. Even as per the admitted facts in the present case, no case of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice has been made out as against this opposite party. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 have been duly served in this case but the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 did not appear and consequently, the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.9.2016.

5        In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-12, affidavit of Baljinder Singh ASI No. 1035/TT, P.S. City Tarn Taran Ex. C-13, alongwith documents ex. C-14 to Ex. C-17 and closed his evidence. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Aneesh Bhaskaran Senior Legal Executive Ex. OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex. OP1/2 to Ex. OP1/19 and closed the evidence.

6        We have heard the complainant and have also carefully gone through the evidence and documents on the file.

7        There is no dispute that the car bearing registration No. PB-46-N-8997 was got insured by the complainant from opposite party Nos.1 and 2 vide insurance cover copy whereof is Ex.OP1/2. The complainant has placed on record ex. C-12 i.e. reply dated 4.5.2016 to the legal notice by the opposite parties addressed to sh. Amanbir Singh Dhillon Advocate counsel for complainant and pleaded as follows:-

“We call up your client to kindly submit the requisite documents at the earliest for us to determine the feasibility of considering the claim subjected to the verification of the documents produced.”

As such, vide Ex. C-12, the opposite parties demanded the requisite documents. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties have also placed on record letters demanding the documents from the complainant. However, the from the perusal of the file, it reveals that the claim of the complainant has not been decided so far and the same is still pending.  On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the complainant alleged that the complainant has supplied all the requisite documents to the opposite parties in time and the opposite parties with malafide intention are not deciding the claim of the complainant.  During the course of arguments, the Ld. counsel for the complainant has also contended the claim has not been decided so far and is still pending inspite of documents provided by the complainant to the opposite parties. In case Balu Waman Kadam vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. IV (2013) CPJ 16A (CN) (Mah.), the matter was similar, wherein the Insurance Company was asking the complainant to submit the documents again and again and the complainant was alleging that he had already submitted the requisite documents to the Insurance Company. In such circumstances, the

Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra disposed of the matter, by directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant within one month on receipt of the required documents from the complainant. 

8        While relying upon the above said authority, the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh passed the similar orders in case M/s Trends, through its Proprietor vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Consumer Complaint No.245 of 2015 decided on 04.08.2017; and M/s Gurbir Rice Mills v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Consumer Complaint No.404 of 2016, decided on 09.10.2017, directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant after submission of requisite documents by the complainant to it. 

9        In view of our above discussion as well as keeping in view the ratio of above said judgments, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the Insurance Company be directed to decide the claim of the complainant, after the complainant submit all the requisite documents.

10      In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to submit the requisite documents demanded by the opposite parties-Insurance Company vide letter dated 12.6.2015 Ex. OP1/14 to opposite parties No. 1, 2 for deciding the claim within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and on approaching the complaint for supplying the requisite documents, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 will issue proper receipt acknowledging the same. The opposite parties No. 1, 2 shall decide the claim of the complainant within a further period of two months therefrom and in case of failure on the part of the opposite parties No. 1, 2 the claim case of the complainant deemed to have been accepted.  Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.