The present complaint was filed by the titled complainant against the titled opposite party insurers upon non-receipt (till the filing of the present complaint) of status/fate of his Total-Loss Theft-Claim filed by him with the OP2 insurer pertaining to his stolen TATA Tipper (2518) Truck R.C. (Ex.C1) No. PB-08-BY 9922 comprehensively insured for an IDV of Rs.12 Lac vide Policy (Ex.C2) No. 73473124 valid w.e.f. 18.05.2017 to 17.05.2018 and somehow got stolen in between the night of 30.10.2017 & 31.10.2017; And, the related FIR (Ex.C3) No. 45 dated 02.11.2017 U/s 379 IPC was filed at the P.S. Sadar Pathankot. 

2.       Further, the local agent of the OP insurers was duly intimated/made aware of all the details regarding the theft and later-on all the claim-related documents were duly submitted at the O/o OP2 Branch Office who had assured of one timely and expeditious settlement. The complainant had also got served the legal-notice (Ex.C4) dated 14.06.2018 vide India Post (Ex.C5 & Ex.C6) with no positive results. In the meantime, the police had also filed the UN-traced Report (Ex.C7) in the honorable court of the C.J.M., Pathankot who had accepted the same vide his related (Ex.C8) Orders; Both the documents were also filed with the OP insurers but they still declined to settle and pay the theft-claim in spite of an all-out assistance/efforts by the complainant; who (Ex.C9) having finally fed-up with the situation, has filed the present complaint along with his affidavit and above exhibits (Ex.C1 to Ex.C9) seeking directives to the opposite party insurers to pay the vehicle's theft-claim at its IDV of Rs.12 Lac besides to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for having suffered harassment and mental agony etc. The complainant has also filed written submissions to rebut the objections as raised in the related OP written reply.          

3.       The titled opposite parties, in response to the commission’s summons/notice appeared through their counsel and filed their common written reply stating therein preliminary as well as other objections (on merits, as well) as:                                                    

4.    That the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has never filed his theft-claim with the insurers' branches/offices and as such there's never been any question of its settlement or otherwise. Further, the R.C. of the insured vehicle has yet to be transferred in the complainant's name as such there's no insurable interest of his over the insured vehicle. Presently, the said claim, even if filed, will fall outside the time frame-limits and as such the OP insurers are absolved of their statutory liability under the terms and conditions of the related policy. On merits, the same objections, as above, are repeated and lastly the OP insurers have sought dismissal of the present complaint with special costs and have also filed the listed documents (sans affidavit) in evidence as: 

          i) Ex.OP1 - Form 24 (On-line) Copy from the O/o the RTA,   Jalandhar; and,                       

          ii) Ex.OP2 – Form 24 (On-line) Repeat Copy of the above     Ex.OP1.

5.       We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides, on points of law, and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care and caution on the points of fact, as placed before us. We are also inclined to examine the inference it’s ‘scope n spread’ on account of some documents ignored to be produced/not-produced during the course of proceedings.                

6.       We observe that the OP insurers' prime objection/pleading has been that the theft-claim was not filed with them but they have not produced any evidence of the sort so as to prove their otherwise an unacceptable allegation. The written reply raising the improbable allegation has not even been supported by the statutory affidavit. Further, no statement/deposition of the OP local-agent has been produced rebutting the complainant statement confirming accident-intimation given to him. Also, the OP have also mentioned that their Dausya Branch had not received the claim whereas the complainant had state filing the claim with the Hoshiarpur Branch. So, there are so many unexplained anomalies in the OP produced records/written statement sans cogent-evidence that these cannot be legally relied upon. Moreover, by the time, It has been the settled law by virtue of a plethora of senior court judgments that theft-claim(s) cannot be rejected solely on account of 'delay' in its intimation or in its filing of the theft-claim with the insurers.       

7.       We are of the considered opinion at the face of the evidenced-facts as available on the records that there’s have been an unfair display of its superior/dominant position by the OP Insurers in blanking-out the 'transparency' of claim-status resolve from the insured and that amounted to deficiency in service on the OP insurer's part and as such the impugned ‘non-resolve/non-reply/silence’ on the OP insurer's part over the status of the insurance-claim, in question, had been unwarranted, arbitrary and unfair; neither in accordance with the provisions of the statutory law nor in conformity with the sanctity of natural justice, equity and good conscience. Further, it has violated with impunity the preferred statutory consumer rights of the insured complainant causing him much physical harassment, mental agony n financial loss. Lastly, we hold the insurers guilty of statutory misconduct amounting to ‘unfair trade practices/deficiency in service’ and thus liable to an adverse award under the provisions of the governing statute. However, the OP insurers in order to pay the impugned theft-claim shall be at liberty to procure certified copies of the requisite document(s), if any, from the records of the present complaint, in accordance with the prescribed rules.         

8.       In the light of the all above, we dispose off this complaint with directions to  the opposite party insurers to settle and pay the impugned claim @ the policy's full IDV of with interest @ 6% PA from the date of complaint (till paid in full) within 45 days of receipt of the certified copy of these orders.    

9.       The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

10.         Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.   

                                                                    (Naveen Puri)

                                                                         President.

ANNOUNCED:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

SEPT. 21, 2022.                                                 Member.

YP.