DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:263 of 2011] Date of Institution : 15.06.2011 Date of Decision : 11.01.2012 --------------------------------------- Swami Devi Dayal Hi-Tech Education Academy, Village Golpura, Tehsil Barwala, District Panchkula through authorized representative Sh. M. L. Jindal. ---Complainant. V E R S U S National Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO No.40-41, Phase V, Mohali. ---Opposite party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Varun Chawla, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the opposite party. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant, which is an educational institute has filed this complaint through Sh. M. L. Jindal, its authorized representative under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs:- i) To pay Rs.5,10,000/- being the claim amount along with interest @18% per annum; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages; iv) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that it got its Bolero SLX bearing Temporary Regd. No.PB-65-D(T)-5582 comprehensively insured with the opposite party vide policy (Annexure C-1) and paid a premium of Rs.13,641/-. The said vehicle was insured for the period from 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2010. According to the complainant, on the night intervening 6/7.7.2009, the said car was parked in front of the house of Dr. R. N. Nauhria (Director of the complainant educational academy). Unfortunately, it was stolen from that place. F.I.R. No.181 dated 7.7.2009 was lodged with concerned Police Station. The opposite party was also intimated about the theft and a claim was lodged with the opposite party. The opposite party demanded some documents for processing the claim vide its letter dated 22.08.2010 (Annexure C-3), which were supplied by the complainant. However, despite completing all the formalities, the opposite party did not settle the claim and finally closed the file on 2.7.2010 for want of non traceable certificate u/s 173 Cr.P.C. According to the complainant, the non traceable certificate u/s 173 Cr.P.C was put up by the police before the Illaqa Magistrate for the first time on 28.10.2009 and subsequently on 3.1.2011. The complainant submitted the non traceable report under section 173 Cr.P.C to the opposite party vide letter dated 6.1.2011 and requested to reopen the claim file but to no avail. According to the complainant, treating the claim as ‘No Claim’ and closing the claim file in such an arbitrary manner without waiting for the untraceable report amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the opposite party, it has been admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it for the period from 1.7.2009 to 30.6.2010. It is also admitted that intimation of theft was received on 7.7.2009 and the complainant lodged the claim. It has been pleaded that the complainant was asked to provide necessary documents along with the untraced report vide letters dated 8.7.2009, 24.8.2009 and 12.2.2010 (Annexures R-3 to R-5). However, it is asserted that the complainant failed to submit the Final Investigation Report and the Non Traceable Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. The opposite party sent a final letter dated 22.6.2010 to the complainant for supplying these two required documents within seven days. The complainant failed to supply the requisite documents and the file was closed as ‘No Claim’ on 2.7.2010. According to the opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record. 5. Admittedly, the claim of the complainant was closed as ‘No Claim’ on 2.7.2010 on the ground that the complainant had failed to submit untraceable report of the stolen vehicle. It is pertinent to mention here that untraceable report is given by the police to the court, in case during the investigation police fails to find out the culprit and the stolen articles are not recovered. The complainant has no control on the investigation of the police. The police takes its own time in the investigation of the case. Even after the untraceable report is submitted to the Court, it is the discretion of the court to accept the same or to send the case for re-investigation. The complainant has no control over the court also. In the present case, the copy of final non traceable report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was received by the complainant on 3.1.2011 and the same was sent by the complainant to the opposite party vide registered letter dated 6.1.2011 with a request to reopen the claim file. But the opposite party did not accede to his request. 6. As mentioned above, the complainant could not submit the untraceable report in response to the letters dated 8.7.2009, 24.8.2009, 12.2.2010 and 22.6.2010 because the same was not made available to him by the concerned authorities till that time. In such circumstances, closing of the claim as ‘No Claim’ amounts to deficiency in service and an illegality because the OP could not close the claim for want of a document, which is not in existence. So, the closing of the case in such circumstances amounts to deficiency in service. Even if the case was closed as ‘No Claim’, the matter should have been revived and reconsidered in the light of the document submitted by the complainant and which was sought by the OP. Thus, the repudiation of the claim for the reasons mentioned in the repudiation letter (Annexure R-8), is uncalled for and amounts to deficiency in service. 7. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed as follows: - i) To pay an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- to the complainant being the IDV of the vehicle in question. ii) to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment. iii) to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 8. This order be complied with by the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay Rs.5,40,000/- i.e. [Rs.5,10,000 + Rs.30,000] along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.15.06.2011 till actual payment besides payment Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 11th January 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.263 of 2011 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 06.01.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 11.01.2012 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
