Haryana

Karnal

CC/803/2019

Rajinder Kumar Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Arora

02 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 803 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.04.12.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:02.02.2022

 

Rajinder Kumar Arora (Advocate) son of Devi Dayal, resident of House no.32 E Polutry Area Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Hafed District Office SCO 19020, Ground floor, Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

          

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

Shri Ashok Vohra, counsel for opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant got insured his motorcycle bearing registration no.HR05G-3890, model 1999 with the OP, vide policy no.#1-3QQAC4A P400, valid from 21.08.2015 to 20.08.2016. The insured value of the vehicle in question was Rs.15,000/-. On 11.05.2016, the said motorcycle of the complainant was stolen and in this regard he moved an application dated 11.05.2016 to the Superintendent of Police Karnal. Complainant lodged the FIR no.376 dated 13.05.2016 under section 379 of IPC, Police Station Civil Lines Karnal. After that complainant gave the necessary information to the insurance company. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP several times and requested to pay the insured amount of the aforesaid vehicle but official of the OP always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other by saying to submit the untrace report. Complainant received the untraced report from 24.09.2019 from the Court of Ms. Sukriti, Learned C.J.M. Karnal. After receiving the untrace report the complainant again approached in the office of OP and submitted untrace report alongwith other relevant documents and requested the OP to pass the claim of the said vehicle but till today OP failed to settle the claim of the complainant. Then, complainant served a legal notice dated 29.10.2019 through his counsel upon the OP in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; barred by limitation and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has not filed any claim with the OP on account of theft of his alleged motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05G-3890, so the complaint is premature and is an abuse of process of law. The complainant was required to intimate the OP immediately on the theft took place, so that the company may help in searing the alleged motorcycle with the help of investigator and thereafter the complainant may prefer any complaint after exhausting the quick remedies available to him. The complainant has filed complaint directly before this Commission without approaching to the OP.  It is further pleaded that present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation clause under Section 24A( now 69(1)) of Consumer Protection Act which define limitation period for filing complaint within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  The vehicle in question was alleged stolen on 10.05.2016 for which no intimation was given to the OP. The complainant directly approached to this Commission by way of present complaint which was filed in the year 2019 much after expiry of two year from the date of alleged theft of insured vehicle, hence the complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that complainant has not given any intimation to the OP regarding theft of motorcycle in question which took place on 11.05.2016. The OP knew about the alleged theft on receiving the notice from this Commission. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of Registration Certificate of motorcycle Ex.C2, insurance policy Ex.C3, untrace report Ex.C4, legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipt Ex.C6, copy of FIR Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 12.01.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Devendra Kumar Ex.RW1/A and copy of insurance policy Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 02.12.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Complainant while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that during the subsistence of insurance policy, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen. Information regarding theft of the vehicle was also given to OP. Thereafter, complainant requested the OP for releasing of his genuine claim regarding the vehicle in question but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint with compensation and litigation expenses etc.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the vehicle of complainant was stolen on 10.05.2016. No intimation regarding the theft of the motorcycle in question was given to the OP. The insurer has deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. He further argued that complaint of the complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.             First question for consideration before us whether the present complaint is barred by limitation or not?

10.             The OP has taken a plea that the complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly time barred. In the present complaint the vehicle in question was stolen on 10.05.2016 and complainant filed the present complaint on 04.12.2019. On the other hand, as per version of complainant, the police submitted the untrace report in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal on 24.09.2019, which was accepted by the court. This fact has been proved from the untrace report Ex.C4 dated 24.09.2019. Meaning, thereby, the cause of action still continuing till 24.09.2019 and complainant has filed the present complaint on 04.12.2019. Thus, the complaint filed by the complainant is within period of limitation, as prescribed in Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the plea taken by the OP has no force.

11.           The next plea taken by the OP is that complainant neither approached the OP with regard to the theft of the vehicle in question nor filed any claim with the OP and theft of the vehicle in question came in their knowledge on receiving notice from this Commission. The said plea taken by the OP has not been rebutted by the complainant by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has miserably failed to prove on record that he had informed the OP with regard to the theft of the vehicle in question and had submitted the claim with the OP. Hence, in view of the above, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to submit the claim before the OP before filing the present complaint. Thus, the complaint of the complainant is premature and at this stage OP is not deficient in service.

12            In view of above observation, we dispose of the present complaint with the direction to the complainant to lodge the claim with the OP by supplying all the documents as required by the OP to settle the claim of the complainant. We also direct the OP to settle the claim of the complainant within one month after submissions of the claim/documents by the complainant. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:02.02.2022

                                                           

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

      

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                     Member                        Member