Punjab

Moga

CC/16/43

Sewak Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh, Rahul Kansal

03 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                     C.C. No. 43 of 2016

                                                              Instituted on: 20.01.2016

                                                 Decided on: 03.05.2016

 

Sewak Singh s/o Jora Singh, V.P.O Fatehgarh Korotana, Tehsil Dharamkot, District Moga.

                                                                                                                                              ……….   Complainant 

Versus

 

1. The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 1^st Floor Hero Honda Motorcycle Agency, Amritsar Road, Makhu.

 

2. The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office S.C.O. 109-110-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh-160017.

 

3. The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Oriental House A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi- 110002.

 

4. The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Amlok Bhawan Near Chakki Wali Gali, G.T.Road, Moga.

 

                                                                                                                                            ………. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Present:      Sh. Rahul Kansal, Advocate Cl. for the complainant.

                   Sh. Amit Kumar, Advocate Cl. for the opposite parties.

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal, President)

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 1^st Floor Hero Honda Motorcycle Agency, Amritsar Road, Makhu and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) for directing them to make the payment of insurance amount i.e. Rs.59,850/- to the complainant. Further opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment and to pay Rs.10,000/- as legal expenses or any other appropriate relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant.

2.                 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant is owner of a Red/Black Colour, Bajaj Pulser 135 CC LS bearing chassis no.MD2A17CZ2DWG34401, registration no.PB29S-6190, which was purchased on 18.12.2013 from Guru Kirpa Autos, Amritsar Road, Near Petrol Pump, Kot-Ise-Khan, District Moga. The said vehicle was insured with opposite parties under policy bearing no.233793/31/2014/1322 valid for the period 19.12.2013 to 18.12.2014 and the policy casts a duty upon the opposite parties no.1 to 4 to settle the claim of the complainant in event of any loss occur due to theft, accident etc. On 8.11.2014, brother of the complainant took the motorcycle of the complainant to the house of some relative and after some time, when he got ready to come back, he found his motorcycle missing, due to missing of motorcycle he became tensed and he gave complaint to police station, Dharamkot, District Moga, on next day i.e. on 9.11.2014. Police assured the complainant that they will inquire the matter and got the signatures of complainant on some blank papers for completing the legal formalities and FIR was got registered by the police u/s 379 of IPC against unknown persons and the Police had filed its report in the court that the vehicle of the complainant is untraceable, which clearly proves that the vehicle of the complainant has got stolen. Thereafter, the complainant approached opposite party no.1 for recovery of his loss, through claim money and followed all the instructions given by representative of the company and also provide all his assistance to him. According to the instructions of the representative of opposite parties, complainant submitted his claim form alongwith requisite documents i.e. bill of purchase of motorcycle, copy of registration of vehicle, copy of FIR, Certificate of Gram Panchayat regarding stolen motorcycle, copy of untraceable report filed by the police in the court, copy of crime report etc. with the opposite parties. But to the utter surprise of the complainant, he received a letter dated 31.08.2015 vide which the opposite parties have rejected the claim of the complainant considering as "no claim". Thereafter, a representation to prove the case was also given by the complainant to the opposite parties. But all in vain. Complainant also got served a legal notice dated 31.01.2015 upon opposite parties, but to no effect. Due to the act of the opposite parties complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties no.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that there are many complicated questions of law are involved in this case, which cannot be determined by this Forum in summary proceedings; that the complainant has not been filed against proper party, so the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it has been submitted that the opposite party nos.1 to 4 are the employees of Insurance company and they are not themselves insurance company. The complainant should have been filed against the insurance company and not against the officials of company. Further submitted that no theft of the motorcycle has taken place, as is clear from the report of Investigator appointed by the insurance company. The Investigator visited the website of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, Vehicles Inquiry Report and from the said website, it has been transpired that vehicle no.PB-29S-6190 has not been reported as stolen. Moreover, the version of the complainant regarding theft is different. As per the complaint made to the police by Angrej Singh brother of the complainant, he gave the vehicle to one person namely Manna and thereafter, he returned the same alongwith its key and he started talking with him and thereafter in connivance with some other person, he took away the said vehicle though the keys and registration of the insurance company remained with him. This complaint was made to the police on 9.11.2014, Photostat copy of which was given by Sewak Singh to the insurance company, which is duly signed by him. The complainant has informed the insurance company vide letter dated 12.11.2014, in which, he has stated that his motorcycle was stolen on 8.11.2014, when it was parked in front of his house. Both the versions of theft are different and do not tally with each other, which creates doubt about the said theft. It appears that in order to get false claim, the complainant has kept his motorcycle with someone else and made false report to the police and to the answering opposite parties. Moreover as submitted above, it is not a case of theft, rather it is a case of intentional mischief of the complainant. It has been further submitted that the complainant has not completed all the formalities and he failed to produce any positive evidence regarding theft. Other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant Sewak Singh tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-20 and closed the evidence. 

5.             In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Vikas Kataria, Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ferozepur City Ex.OPs- 1 and copy of document Ex.OPs-2  and closed the evidence.

6.              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                Learned counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased Motorcycle Bajaj Pulser 135CC LS on 18.12.2013, which was got insured with opposite parties for the period 19.12.2013 to 18.12.2014 against theft, accident etc. The said motorcycle bears registration no. PB29S-6190. Copy of bill of the motorcycle is Ex.C-2, copy of the insurance policy is Ex.C-3 and copy of the RC is Ex.C-4. On 8.11.2014, the brother of the complainant took the motorcycle to visit some relative and after some time, when he was ready to come back, he found his motorcycle missing. He tried to find the motorcycle at every place, but of no avail. On 9.11.2014, he filed a complaint at Police Station, Dharamkot, who registered FIR regarding theft of motorcycle, copy of complaint made to Police is Ex.C-5 and FIR is Ex.C-6. Complainant immediately informed the opposite parties regarding the said incident. The police also filed untraceable report of the motorcycle in the court, copy of untraceable report filed by the police in the court is Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8. The complainant duly lodged his claim with the opposite parties alongwith all the requisite documents i.e. bill regarding the purchase of motorcycle, copy of registration of vehicle, copy of FIR, copy of untraceable report, copy of crime report and certificate of Gram Panchayat regarding stealing of motor cycle and opposite parties assured that they will pay his claim within few days. But on 31.8.2015, complainant received a letter from the opposite parties vide which they repudiated his claim considering it as 'No Claim', copy of the repudiation letter is Ex.C-10. Vide this letter opposite parties rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that as per the website of Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, Vehicle Enquiry Report his vehicle has not been reported as stolen, while the Vehicle Enquiry Report, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India placed on record by the complainant shows that Motorcycle in question is duly reported as Stolen, copy of Vehicle Enquiry Report is Ex.C-9. The opposite parties rejected the claim of the complainant illegally on false grounds. Certificate issued by Gram Panchayat regarding stealing of the vehicle is Ex.C-11. Complainant visited the office of opposite parties and requested them to pay his genuine claim and also made representation to opposite parties to prove his case, but they did not give any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Complainant also issued legal notice to opposite parties, but they did not give any reply to the said notice, copy of legal notice is Ex.C-16. Opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of his vehicle. Intentionally rejecting the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and mal trade practice. Due to this act of the opposite parties, complainant has suffered great mental tension and financial loss and opposite parties may be directed to pay insurance claim of Rs. 59,850/- alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

8.                To controvert the arguments of complainant, learned counsel for opposite parties argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. However, he admitted that motorcycle in question was insured with opposite parties, but he argued that no theft of motorcycle has taken place, as it is clear from the report of investigator appointed by opposite parties, who has visited the website of Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, Vehicles Enquiry Report and from the website, it has been transpired that the vehicle in question has not been reported as stolen. Moreover, the version of the complainant regarding the theft is different. As per the complaint made to the police by brother of the complainant, he gave the vehicle to one person namely Manna and thereafter, he returned the same alongwith its keys and he started talking with him and thereafter in connivance with some other person, he took away the said vehicle. This complaint was made to police on 9.11.2014, while the complainant informed the opposite parties vide letter dated 12.11.2014 stating that his motorcycle was stolen on 8.11.2014, when it was parked in front of his house. Both the versions create doubt about the incident. It appears that in order to get the claim, the complainant has kept his motorcycle with someone else and made false report to the police and opposite parties. Copy of the investigation report of the investigator appointed by opposite parties is Ex.OPs-2. The complainant has failed to produce proper evidence regarding the theft. The certificate issued by Gram Panchayat has no evidence regarding the theft of motorcycle. The claim of the complainant was rejected after going through the documents. The complainant has failed to produce any positive document/evidence regarding the theft of the motorcycle, so the claim of the complainant was rightly rejected. Complainant has not completed all the formalities nor he was able to lead any positive evidence regarding the loss of vehicle. He lodged a false claim with the opposite parties, so he is not entitled to any claim and opposite parties have not been liable to pay any compensation to complainant. It has been contended that the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

9.                We have thoroughly gone through the file, pleadings and evidence led by both the parties. The case of the complainant is that he was the owner of Red/Black Colour, Bajaj Pulser 135 CC LS, which was insured with opposite parties under insurance policy valid for the period 19.12.2013 to 18.12.2014 and during the period of insurance said motorcycle was stolen. Complainant duly lodged complaint regarding the theft with police and he duly gave intimation regarding the said incident to opposite parties. The police filed untraceable report in the court regarding the vehicle. Thereafter, complainant lodged claim before opposite parties regarding his motorcycle, but opposite parties rejected his claim on false grounds. In reply, opposite parties submitted that the complainant has failed to prove theft of his vehicle. On receipt of information from the complainant, they appointed investigator to investigate the matter, who duly submitted his report. As per his report the vehicle in question has not been reported as stolen with National Crime Record Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India and there is discrepancy with regard to the complaint lodged with the police and with opposite parties. So, they rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

10.              To prove his case regarding the theft of the vehicle in question, complainant produced copy of complaint lodged with police Ex.C-5, copy of FIR Ex.C-6 and untraceable report of police regarding the vehicle Ex.C-7 & C-8 and Vehicle Enquiry Report of National Crime Record Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India Ex.C-9 and from these documents, it has been clearly proved that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 8.11.2014 and complainant duly lodged complaint with police and intimated the opposite parties immediately after the incident. To reject the claim of the complainant, the opposite parties relied upon the investigation report conducted by their investigator, which is Ex.OPs-2. In this report, the investigator Mr. K.S. Romana submitted that brother of the complainant made complaint regarding the theft of vehicle with police on 9.11.2014. But police instead of registering a separate case of theft by name against alleged accused have attached it with another FIR no.341 dated 5.12.2014 for investigation. He reported that he visited Police Station and contacted Munshi, who confirmed the fact of filing FIR with the police. He further submitted that he enquired about the incident from Gram Panchayat, who issued a certificate that the vehicle in question is stolen on 8.11.2014. In the conclusion, he submitted that vehicle in question was insured with opposite parties and the same was stolen on 8.11.2014 in between 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm from village Fatehgarh Korotana, Moga and the complaint regarding the incident was duly lodged with the police. Village Panchayat also confirmed the theft of Motorcycle. He further made conclusion that no contradictory evidence came to light during investigation and on the basis of report, he concluded that vehicle in question was stolen on 8.11.2014, but police instead of registering the FIR attached it with another FIR no. 341. He reported that as per NCRB report theft of motorcycle in question has not been reported as stolen by the police, whereas the complainant in his evidence produced Vehicle Enquiry Report of NCRB Ex.C-9, where the status of vehicle in question has reported as stolen. The version of opposite parties that they rejected the claim of the complainant on the basis of report of investigator. However, from the perusal of investigation report as discussed above, we do not find any ground to reject the claim of the complainant. In his investigation report, investigator duly admitted that the vehicle in question was stolen on 8.11.2014, as reported by the complainant with police and opposite parties. The mere issue is that in the NCRB report the vehicle has not reported as stolen by the police is not the ground to repudiate the claim of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant produced the Vehicle Enquiry Report of NCRB, where the status of the vehicle clearly shows as stolen.

11.              From the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that opposite parties wrongly and illegally rejected the claim of the complainant on false grounds, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has succeeded to prove his case. Hence, the complaint in hand stands allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 59,850/- i.e. insured value of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 31.8.2015 when they repudiated the claim of the complainant till final realization. Further opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 4000/-(Four thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and harassment faced by complainant and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Opposite parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint against OP-3 stand dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 03.05.2016

 

 

                     (Bupinder Kaur)           (Vinod Bala)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

                           Member                     Member                     President