Haryana

Karnal

381/2012

Ravinder Kumar S/o Bal Kishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram Gernal Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Sharma

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.381 of 2012

                                                              Date of instt. 09.08.2012

                                                               Date of decision:15.2.2017

 

Ravinder Kumar son of Shri Bal Kishan, resident of village Sewah, Tehsil and District Panipat.

 

                                                                                ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus.

1. The Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 410, Mugal Canal, Karnal.

2. The Regional Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur (Ratasthan).

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:      Shri R.K.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Rohit Gupta Advocate for opposite parties.

 

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got insured his Auto-Rickshaw bearing registration no.HR-67A-0956 with the opposite parties, vide policy no.102018/31/11/001685, valid from 27.7.2010 to 26.7.2010. At that time the temporary registration number of the Auto-Rickshaw was HR-99ES-TEMPO-6214. On 21.10.2011, the Auto-Rickshaw was stolen by some person from Qualander Chowk, Panipat. First Information Report no.1058 was got registered in Police Station City, Panipat, regarding the said theft. He lodged claim with opposite party no.1, who deputed the Accurate Investigators and Recovery Agency, as investigator. The said investigator approached him and submitted written letter dated 28.10.2010 with details of requisite documents. He had given some documents to the Investigator, who made endorsement regarding the same on the said letter. Thereafter, he received letter dated 5.4.2011 and submitted reply thereto on 20.4.2011 by the registered post. The police failed to trace out the Auto-Rickshaw. After collecting the untraced report on 5.9.2011, he sent the same to the opposite parties. Even after submitting all the documents, the opposite parties did not release his genuine claim despite repeated requests. Ultimately, he got served a legal notice dated 1.3.2012 upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which caused him mental pain and agony apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of Ajay Hire Purchase & Leasing Company, Panipat as necessary party; that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this forum under summary jurisdiction; that the complainant has no privity of contract to consider him as consumer and that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant was asked to submit the documents i.e. First Information Report with correct vehicle details, second key, final untraced report issued by the court with case diary, No Objection Certificate with form 35 issued by the Finance Company and satisfaction voucher duly signed, vide letters dated 23.3.2011 and 5.4.2011, but he failed to submit the required documents, which were necessary for processing of the claim, therefore, his claim was closed, vide letter dated 12.4.2011. Moreover, the complainant left the vehicle unattended in drivable condition and as such directly contributed theft thereof, which was gross violation of condition no.4 of the policy.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Vikash Goyal Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O11 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                There is no dispute that the Auto-Rickshaw of the complainant was insured by opposite parties for the period of 27.7.2010 to 26.7.2011. The said Auto-Rickshaw was stolen on 21.10.2010 during subsistence of the policy. First Information Report, the copy of which is Ex.C14, was lodged by the complainant regarding the said theft in Police Station City, Panipat on 21.10.2010. The complainant lodged claim with the opposite parties, who appointed Accurate Investigators and Recovery Agency as investigator. On 28.10.2010 the investigator gave letter, the copy of which is Ex.C13, to the complainant for submitting the required documents. Some documents were supplied by the complainant to the investigator on the same day, but some more documents were required to be submitted and the detail of the same was given in the said letter. As per the case of the opposite parties, the complainant did not submit the required documents despite letters Ex.O2 to Ex.O4, therefore, his claim was closed. On the other hand, the complainant has asserted that he had submitted the copy of First Information Report with the details of the vehicle, both keys, No Objection Certificate with form 35 duly signed by the finance company and sent letter Ex.C16 to the opposite parties in response to the letter Ex.C15

7.                Thus, the matter in controversy lies for narrow compass and the main question which arises for consideration is whether the complainant had submitted the required documents to the opposite parties, for processing the claim. The copies of the letters dated 23.3.2011, 5.4.2011 and 12.4.2011 Ex.O2 to Ex.O4 respectively show that the complainant was asked to furnish the copy of First Information Report with correct vehicle detail, second key, final untraced report issued by court with case diary, No Objection Certificate with form 35 duly signed and with rubber stamp of Finance Company and satisfaction voucher duly signed by him. The complainant had given some documents to the investigator on 28.10.2010 and the same were duly mentioned by the investigator on the letter, the copy of which is Ex.C13. The investigator further asked for the registration certificate, particulars safe custody, one set of keys and the final report as mentioned on Ex.C13.  As per copy of letter of the complainant dated 20.4.2011 Ex.C16 he submitted that he had personally submitted the copy of First Information Report with details of vehicle, both keys, NOC with Farm 35 duly signed by the Financer and the satisfaction voucher. However, no receipt regarding submitting these documents by him to the investigator, has been placed on record. Moreover, even as per this letter untraced report was also required to be submitted by him for processing the claim. In the complaint, he has alleged that he collected the untraced report on 5.2.2011 and sent the same to the opposite parties, but no documentary evidence has been produced to establish that the copy of the untraced report was sent to the opposite parties. Even it has not been clarified as to whom he had submitted the copy of the untraced report and whether the same was sent through post or given to the investigator or to any official of the opposite parties. In the absence of any evidence the self serving affidavit of the complainant in this regard cannot be taken to be the gospel truth and the same is not sufficient to prove that the untraced report was also submitted by him to the opposite parties, for processing the claim.

8.                From the aforediscussed evidence, it is clear that the complainant had submitted some documents to the opposite parties, but some document which were necessary for processing the claim, were not submitted.  The opposite parties had not repudiated the claim of the complainant, rather his claim was closed for not submitting the documents necessary for processing the claim. The complainant should submit these necessary documents to the opposite parties so that his claim may be processed.

9.                In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complaint is premature. Accordingly, the complainant is directed to submit the required documents  mentioned in the letters dated 23.3.2011, 5.4.2011 and 12.4.2011  with the opposite parties within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order and we further direct that the opposite parties would decide the claim of the complainant within 30 days of submission of the documents by the complainant. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 15.02.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member