Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/600/2013

Rakesh Kumar S/o Jai Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

08 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

   

                                                                                    Complaint No. 600 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 19.08.2013

                                                                                    Date of decision: 08.09.2017.

 

Rakesh Kumar aged about 40 years, son of Shri Jai Ram, resident of House No.1600-E, Parladpur, Near ITI, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 138, 1^st Floor, Commercial Belt, Sector 17, HUDA jagadhri through its Branch Manager/authorized Signatory.

 

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur-302022 Rajashan through its Authorized Signatory/Concerned Officer.

 

              ….Respondents.

BEFORE        SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.   

 

Present:          Shri SS Saini, Advocate, for complainant.   

                        Shri AS Goel, Advocate for OPs

 

ORDER (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The complainant Rakesh Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is the registered owner of one Mahindra Renault Make Logan DLS bearing Registration No. HR02-T-6622, Model 2008 which was financed with the SBI and the same was insured with the OPs vide cover note/ Policy No.102017/31/11/000643 valid from 05.05.2010 to 04.05.2011 against premium. On 13.11.2010 at about 06.00PM, the complainant parked his above said car in the Gali in front of his house and when in the morning, the complainant did not find his car at the spot he tried to trace his car of his own and enquired here and there but of no use. Ultimately on the same day the complainant visited the police station, Farakpur and the officials of the PS Farakpur told the complainant to trace out the vehicle and if he was not able to trace out the same then he should come to the police station on the next day on 14.11.2011, the complainant visited the PS Farakpur but the police of PS Farakpur told the complainant that due to Sunday, they were on leave and asked him to come on the next day. In between, the complainant tried to trace out his vehicle but was not able to trace out the same and ultimately on 15.11.2010, the complainant gave an application for lodging FIR to PS Farakpur and thereupon the police lodged the FIR No.307 dated 15.11.2010 under Section 379 IPC in PS Farakpur and the intimation regarding theft was given to the OPs on 13.11.2010 but the OPs demanded the copy of FIR along with application of claim and the same was provided to the OP No.1 on 16.11.2010. The OPs had deputed investigators and recovery agency, who vide their letter dated 17.11.2010, had required the documents, which were duly supplied to the OPs. Thereafter, the OP No.1, vide its letter dated 18.11.2010, demanded RC particulars of the vehicle and the same were provided to the OP No.1. The OPs have registered the claim bearing No.10000/31/11/C/026702 and had assured that the claim amount will be paid to the complainant very shortly. After supplying the untraced report also the complainant has been continuously visiting the office of OP No.l for payment of claim to him but the OPs have not done the needful till to date and lastly prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000/- i.e.value of the car along with interest and to pay compensation on account of mental, physical and financial harassment. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complaint of the complainant is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint; complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous and has been filed just to harass the OPs. Complaint of the complainant is time barred as the alleged incident of theft occurred on 13.11.2010 and thereafter, the complainant applied for getting the claim in respect of the stolen vehicle. On this, the OPs required the complainant to submit certain documents viz 1-final untraced report issued by Court with case dairy, 2.  New Claim form duly filled and signed by the insured. 3.  NOC with form 35 duly signed and with rubber stamp of finance company within 7 days from the receipt of the letter, for settling the claim vide letter No.SGIC/CLM/11, dated 10.03.2011 but the complainant did not supply the demanded documents. On this, the Ops again issued a letter No.SGIC/CLM/11/01 dated 11.03.2011 to the complainant wherein the OPs again required the complainant to supply the aforesaid documents within 3 days from the receipt of the letter, to settle his claim but the complainant again failed to comply the said letter. Finally, the OPs issued a letter No. SGIC/CLM/11/02 dated 29.03.2011 to the complainant calling therein to the complainant for supply of the demanded documents, otherwise his claim case shall be closed. However, the complainant was given an opportunity that if he supplies the aforesaid documents within three months from receipt of the said letter, his case will be again reopened. But, despite providing ample opportunity to the complainant, the complainant miserably failed to supply the required documents. Consequently the claim of the complainant was closed.  Further it has been alleged by the Ops that complainant suddenly awaken from deep slumber after more than 2 years, as such, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable on this score alone and the alleged date of theft in this case is 13.11.2010 whereas FIR was registered on 15.11.2010 which in itself casts a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the alleged loss. On merit, rest contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken into preliminary objection and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OPs.

4.                     In support of the case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents as Annexure C1 to C9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit cum written statement as Annexure RW/A and documents as Annexure R1 to R4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record available on the file.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is owner of car and the same was insured with OPs valid from 05.05.2010 to 04.05.2011 with IDV of Rs.5,00,000/- and the same was financed with State Bank of India.  The said car was stolen in the intervening night of 13.11.2010/14.11.2010. The complainant lodged FIR on 15.11.2010 regarding the theft and intimation was also given to the insurance company. It is further argued that the complainant handed over the requisite documents to the OPs Insurance Company but the OPs-Company has failed to settle the claim of the complainant till date and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

8.                     On the other hand learned counsel for the Ops argued that  the complaint is time barred and prayed for dismissal of the complaint only on this ground.  The counsel for the OPs further argued that the complainant failed to  supply  certain documents i.e.  untraceable report, new claim form duly filled and signed by the insured and NOC with Form No.35 duly signed with rubber stamp of finance company. Several letters were written to the complainant but the complainant failed to submit the required documents and lastly vide letter dated 29.03.2011 the claim of the complainant was closed. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is clear that the main grievance of the complainant is that he had submitted all the requisite documents to the OP company for settlement of the claim in question but the OP Company on false and frivolous ground closed the file of the complainant. The first objection of the OPs is that the complaint is time barred and prayed for dismissal of the complaint on this very ground. It is admitted fact that the car in question was stolen on the intervening night of 13.11.2010/14.11.2010 and FIR was also lodged regarding the theft on 15.11.2010 which is clear from Annexure C3. The present complaint was filed by the complainant on 19.08.2013. From the perusal of document Annexure C-8 which is untraceable report given by the Learned CJM, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri on 19.07.2012.  We are of the considered view that it was not in the hands of the complainant to direct the Police Authorities to provide the untraceable report as and when he required. From the perusal of document Annexure C-8, it reveals that the complainant had submitted the said report to the insurance company on 03.08.2012. But, after receiving the said report, the OP Company did not settle the claim of the complainant. In these circumstances, it is clear that the cause of action was continuing and complainant could file the complaint before this Forum within two years after 03.08.2012 i.e. up to 02.08.2014.  However, the complainant filed this complaint on 19.08.2013 meaning thereby the present complaint is within limitation.

10.                   The other objection of the OPs is that the complainant has not submitted the NOC with Form No.35 duly signed and with rubber stamp of Finance Company. We have gone through the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy but there is nothing in the terms and conditions of the policy that in the event of theft of the vehicle the insurer is bound to provide the NOC with Form No.35 of finance company. We have perused the document Annexure C5 dated 19.11.2010 whereby the complainant had informed the Bank for providing of NOC but the Bank has reported on the aforesaid letter that they have not snatched the vehicle in question and provided to the complainant statement of account of the loan. We are of the view that the complainant has taken a loan from Bank and got hypothecated his vehicle with the Bank and the matter is between the complainant and Financer Bank.

11.                   In view of the facts discussed above, we are of the considered view that the OPs have illegally not settled the claim of the complainant on false and frivolous grounds. We therefore, direct the OPs to settle the claim of the complainant within a period of 60 days from receipt of the copy of this order without insisting upon the submission of No Objection Certificate (NOC) with Form No.35 of Financer  by  complainant. The present complaint is hereby disposed of accordingly. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 08.09.2017    

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT.

 

                            (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                (S.C.SHARMA)

                            MEMBER                                                  MEMBER