As per Hon’ble President Mr. Atul Alshi.
1. The complainant filed complaint case against OP insurance company for arbitrary repudiation of insurance claim of Rs.6,00,000/- for the theft of truck and thereby claiming compensation and cost of litigation.
2. The deceased husband of complainant was owner of truck model no. TATA HGV 2007 LPT 2515 bearing registration no. CG-04-JA-5035 and insured under policy no. 215034/31/17/000092 for the period 22/06/2016 to 11.04.2017 issued by OP in favour of complainant’s deceased husband. On 17/02/2017 truck was parked near house of complainant by taking all precautions. But it was stolen by unknown person in the night. The complainant reported incident to police station Nandanwan, Nagpur and immediately police registered offence against unknown person U/s 379 of I.P.C. on 24/02/2017. The deceased husband of complainant filed insurance claim for the theft of vehicle with relevant documents for adjudication with OP. But OP failed to take any cognizance to settle the claim. Hence, present complaint is filed.
3. The OP filed reply and denied allegations against it and submitted that the present complaint is not tenable for the reason that the complainant has filed two complaints on same cause of action before this commission vide CC/466/2018, which is dismissed in default on 07/01/2019 as well as before at Jabalpur Forum vide CC/577/2018 and said fact has been suppressed by the complainant. Therefore, present complaint is not tenable. The incident has occurred on 18/02/2017 and matter was reported to Police Station on 24/02/2017 delay for FIR was not explained. The OP has issued several letter on dtd.10/03/2017, 03/04/2017, 28/04/2017, 19/06/2017 and 22/08/2017 to submit the requisite documents for adjudication. But complainant failed to submit their documents. Therefore, non disbursement of insurance claim does not amount deficiency in service.
4. The counsel for complainant Adv. Uma Bhattad argued that after incident of theft the complainant searched the vehicle and thereafter registered offence. The complainant has submitted all relevant documents as per demand of letter issued by OP. The late registration of FIR is not bonafide reason for non settlement of insurance claim, Hence, it’s amounts deficiency in service.
5. The counsel for OP Adv. P.N.Khadgi argued that non-joinder of legal heirs of insurer is basic cause for rejection of complaint. The late registration of FIR by the complainant is breach of terms and conditions of policy. The complainant failed to submit the relevant documents at various letters of request issued by OP. Therefore, non disbursement of insurance claim by OP does not amounts deficiency of service.
6. After hearing of case the following points arose for consideration.
POINTS
- Whether the complainant is consumer? Yes.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP? Yes.
- What order? As per final order.
REASONING
7. Point No. 1 to 3 – The complainant deceased husband has insured truck bearing registration no. CG-04-JA-5035 and insured under policy no. 215034/31/17/000092 for the period 22/06/2016 to 11.04.2017 with OP. On 17/02/2017 when the vehicle was parked near house of complainant some unknown person has committed theft at night hours and Nandanwan Police Station Nagpur registered FIR no. 74/17 on 24/02/2017 about theft of truck. Registration of FIR after period of 6 days. Generally when theft of vehicle was committed, the Police Officer suddenly not register crime but ask to search. As per the evidence of theft, the complainant search vehicle and then registered FIR with Police Officer after period of 6 days is bonafide reason for late registration of crime against theft of vehicle. The complainant has specifically stated on oath that the complainant has submitted relevant documents as per demand of letter issued by OP. The complainant has filed one demand letter of OP dt.28.04.2017 to submit the documents for adjudication of claim. Most of documents which were demanded as per demand letter are filed on record by complainant. The proof of service of postal acknowledgement have not been filed on record by OP to prove its contention that several demand letter were issued. Moreover the documents filed on record are itself sufficient to decide the insurance claim on merit at the case in hand.
8. The OP submitted in reply that the case filed before District Consumer Commission, Nagpur bearing Case No.CC/466/2015 has been dismissed in default for non appearance of complainant vide order passed on 07.01.2019 and thereafter the filing of present complaint on same cause of action on 1.08.2019 does bar to present proceeding. After dismissed in default of the case the complainant has right to file second complaint on same cause of action as the case has not been decided on merit. Therefore, the contention of Res-judicator cannot be applicable to the present case. The another contention of OP that the complainant has filed another case at Jabalpur bearing No. CC/577/2018 between the same parties for same cause of action but failed to file the certified copies or status of case or any order thereof. Therefore, the contention of pending any matter cannot be accepted for want of evidence and therefore does not bar the present proceeding.
9. Therefore, as per documents filed on record and reason for delay in registration of FIR the complainant entitled the insurance claim of IDV value Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith compensation for mental torture amounted to Rs.15,000/- and cost of litigation amounted to Rs.10,000/- as per following order.
ORDER
- The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The OP is hereby directed to pay the IDV value i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.10,000/-.
3. Copy of the order shall be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
