Haryana

Karnal

CC/53/2019

Rohit Mann - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ravinder Mann

27 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 53 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt. 01.02.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 27.01.2020

 

Rohit Mann son of Shri Ishwar Singh Mann, resident of House no.282, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                                         …….Complainant.

                                                  Versus

1. The Managing Director, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO Sadan, CI District Centre Saket, New Delhi.

2. The Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, near Railway Crossing, Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana.

3. The Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Sector-12, Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                 …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.  

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

                

Present:   Shri Ravinder Mann Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Ashok Vohra Advocate for opposite parties.

              

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                  

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the complainant is the registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05-Z-8669, which was insured with OPs, vide cover note no.1-DHV59W-P400 issued on 18.02.2016. The motorcycle was insured for a sum of Rs.18,000/-. The said insurance cover note was valid from 11.03.2016 to 10.03.2017. During the subsistence of the policy, on 16.11.2016 the aforesaid motorcycle was stolen by some unknown person from Atal Park, Sector-9, Karnal. The complainant reported the matter to the police and accordingly an FIR no.0979 dated 16.11.2016 under section 379 IPC was registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. The complainant sent the intimation regarding the theft of his vehicle to the OPs. The OPs appointed an investigator to enquire the matter. The complainant also provided the required documents i.e. Registration Certificate, Insurance cover note and copy of FIR etc. The police could not trace the vehicle of the complainant and filed its untraced report before Ms. Shikha, Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Karnal and learned court has accepted the said untraced report vide order dated 20.12.2017. The complainant submitted the untraced report with the OPs. Despite completing all the formalities, OPs failed to settle the claim of the complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 27.07.2018 to the OPs for settlement of the claim but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to limitation; cause of action and maintainability. On merits, it is pleaded that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 16.11.2016 and till date no claim was ever lodged by the complainant with the OPs. The complaint lodged in the month of February, 2019 much after expiry of 2 years from the date of alleged theft of vehicle.  It is further pleaded that complainant has not given due intimation of theft of this motorcycle to the OPs well in time, the police authorities also informed by delay of 9 days, so the right of OPs to recover the said motorcycle has been infringed, thus the complainant has violated the terms and condition no.1 of the insurance policy. It is further pleaded that complainant has not lodged his claim before the OPs, so the question of settlement of his claim does not arise. Even no intimation qua theft of said motorcycle was given to the OP. It is denied that complainant submitted the untraced report dated 28.05.2018 to the insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 28.08.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sameer Gupta Ex.OW1/A and documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 14.01.2020.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05-Z-8669, which was insured with OPs, vide cover note no.1-DHV59W-P400. During the subsistence of the policy, on 16.11.2016 the aforesaid motorcycle was stolen by some unknown person from Atal Park, Sector-9, Karnal. The complainant reported the matter to the police. After the theft of his vehicle, complainant lodged the claim with the OPs and requested for paying the compensation amount but till date same has not been given despite repeated requests made to OPs.

7.             The case of the OPs, in brief, is that the complaint is premature because the complainant never lodged/registered any claim with the OPs and without registration of any claim, the complainant cannot claim any compensation from the OPs. So, question of refuse to settle the claim or repudiation of the claim does not arise.

8.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of the policy. The incident was took place on 07.11.2016, in this regard complainant moved an application Ex.C4 before the police on the same day and police recorded the formal FIR Ex.C5 on 16.11.2016. The version of the OP that complainant had filed the present complaint after expiry of two years from the date of alleged theft of the vehicle and further he did not intimate the OP for the incident. Moreover, the FIR had been lodged for delay of nine days.

9.             The version of the OP with regard to the time barred of the present complaint is not tenable because the untraced report Ex.C6 has been accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal on 20.12.2017. Hence, the cause of action arose after 20.12.2017 and the present complaint was filed on 01.02.2019 i.e. within time period of limitation. The complainant has specifically stated that the intimation with regard to theft was given to the OP but OP denied the said facts. When the complainant had lodged the formal FIR within time then there appears no reason for not intimating to the OP. Thus, the said plea taken by the OP is not acceptable.

10.            The second objection of the OP is that the complainant never lodged/registered the claim with the OP. The claim of the complainant was not released by the OP on the ground that complainant had not submitted the requisitioned documents as well as information to the OP in writing till date. Hence of the complainant is pre-mature. Thus, we are of the considered view at this stage that OP is not deficient in service.

11.            In view of above observation, we dispose of the present complaint with the direction to the complainant to lodge the claim to 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 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: 27.01.2020

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

             (Vineet Kaushik)         (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                     Member                          Member