Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/80/2015

Jagtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The National Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. R.S.Somal

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                         Consumer Complaint No.80 of 2015

                                                                Date of institution:  11.09.2015                                                                      Date of decision   :  12.08.2016

Jagtar Singh son of Sh. Rabbi Singh resident of village Dadiana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Dox; Hero Honda Vertical 101-106, BMC House, Connaught Palace, New Delhi 110001, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Punjab Motors having its office at Chandigarh Road Badali Ala Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its Manager.

 

 

 …..Opposite parties

     

Complaint under Sections 11, 12 and  14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President          

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member           

Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

         

Present :      Sh. R.S.Somal, Adv. Cl. for the complainant

                Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv.Cl. for OP No.1 & 2.        

 

 

 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                Complainant, Jagtar Singh son of Sh. Rabbi Singh resident of village Dadiana, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 11, 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.              The complainant got insured his motor cycle bearing RC No.PB-23Q-2976, Marka HF Deluxe of Blue Colour, from the OPs, vide policy No.39010231136203925103 or shown as 39010231186203925103 and paid Rs.1345/- as premium. The policy was valid from 04.02.2014 to 03.02.2015. On 22.09.2014, at midnight, the motor cycle in question was stolen by some unknown persons from the Railway over bridge, village Harna, P.O. Brass, P.S.Badali Alla Singh, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib. When the vehicle was not recovered, then the complainant got registered an FIR at Police Station Badali Alla Singh, vide FIR No. 66 dated 07.10.2014 under Section 379 IPC and also informed the concerned agency of the said motor cycle. The complainant approached to the Branch of OP No.1 for information regarding the theft of his motorcycle and also submitted affidavit on 10.11.2014 and 28.11.2014 but the officials of the OP did not take any action. The motor cycle in question could not be recovered. The complainant filed an application for claim of his stolen vehicle but the officials of the OP did not give any claim regarding the same. The complainant also issued legal notice dated 21.01.2015 to the OP to pay the insurance claim but in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Previously also the complainant filed a consumer complaint before this Forum on 18.03.2015, which was disposed of with directions to OP No.1 to decide the claim of the complainant within 45 days and the complainant was given liberty to approach this Forum again on the same cause of action. The claim of the complainant was rejected by the OP with remarks " No Claim". Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay full insured amount of the vehicle in question and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages including punitive damages.

3.             The complaint is contested by the OPs. OP No.1, in his written reply,  has stated that the motor cycle in question was insured with it strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. No intimation with regard to the alleged theft of motorcycle was given by the complainant to OP No.1. As per condition No.1 of the Policy, "Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require…". The said condition of the policy has not been complied with as no intimation was given to the company till date. It has been found by the OP that the claim of the complainant is not tenable and the complainant was duly informed vide registered letter dated 03.07.2015. There is no deficiency in service on its part. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In reply to the complaint OP No.2 stated that the grievance of the complainant is towards OP No.1 only. No intimation with regard to any theft claimed has ever been received by OP No.2 and it has also nothing to do with the same. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed qua OP No.2.

5.             In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, attested copy of FIR Ex. C-2, attested copy of legal notice Ex. C-3, copy of postal receipt Ex. C-4, attested copy of DDR Ex. C-6, attested copy of repudiation letter Ex.C-7, attested copy of Form No.20 Ex. C-8, attested copy of inter office memo Ex. C-9, attested copy of registration details Ex. C-10, attested copy of policy Ex. C-11 and copy of order of this Forum as annexure A and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Lalit Mohan Bansal Ex. OP-1, true copies of documents i.e. letter dated 03.07.2015 Ex.OP-2, policy and terms and conditions Ex. OP-3 and closed the evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sorabh Kumar AM Ex. OP-4, true copy of terms and conditions Ex. OP-5 and closed the evidence.

6              The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the OPs had repudiated the claim of the complainant in an arbitrary manner vide letter dated 03/07/2015, Ex. C-7,the same is reproduced; " This has reference to your legal notice received by us through our D.O.X New Delhi and while going through the legal notice we have observed that the theft of your motor cycle took place on 22.09.14(midnight) whereas F.I.R. No.66 was lodged on 07.10.2014 i.e. after 15 days of the theft instead of immediately. Further you have not approached any of our insurance company office which warrants violation of policy condition No.1 which reads as:

 "Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender."

                In view of the above, your above said claim is not maintainable and merits " No Claim", which please note."

He stated that the complainant had duly intimated the police authorities and thereafter also got a FIR No.66 dated: 07/10/2015 under Section 379 registered i.e Ex.C-2. The ld. counsel pleaded an intimation was sent to the OPs but when the OPs did not pay heed to the requests of the complainant he got a legal notice dated 21/01/2015 i.e Ex.C-4 served upon the OPs. The ld. counsel also pleaded that the OPs intentionally did not decide the theft claim of the complainant and it was only after the passing of interim order dated 19/03/2015 the OPs repudiated the lawful claim and complainant deserves to be compensated for the same. The ld. counsel has citied a case law titled as; Vijaya Shrimp Farms and Exports Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in III(2002)CPJ 293(NC).

7.                      The ld. counsel on behalf of OPs no. 1 & 2 at the very outset has objected to the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. He stated that the present case is strictly governed by the Condition No.1, whereby the complainant was required to immediately intimate the OPs with regard to the theft. He pleaded that it is proved from the material placed on record by the complainant that there was total delay of 4 Months and therefore no investigating officer could be appointed by  OP no.1. The ld. counsel pointed out that the complainant after getting the FIR registered on 07/10/2014 did not even care to send intimation to OP no.1 and had only served legal notice  after a period of 4 Months. The ld. counsel referred to case titled as; Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Naresh Walia, Revision Petition No.221 of 2015 decided by Hon'ble National Commission on 08.03.2016, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has observed in para no.7 “ It is held that this Commission and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again that the report of 'theft', must be lodged/intimation must be given to the insurance company, immediately, see "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha- Civil Appeal No.6739/2010 decided on 17.08.2010, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Trilochan Jane- First Appeal No.321/2005 decided on 09.12.2009 and the Tata Motor Finance Limited Vs. Ramesh Kumar & Anr. in RP No. 781 of 2014 decided on 27.10.2014, by this bench."    

8.             After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, It is establish from the evidence produced on record by the complainant that the FIR with regard to theft of the vehicle was lodged after a period of 15 days and thereafter legal notice was served upon the OPs on 21.01.2015.The complainant has failed to place on record any material, which proves that between the period of FIR dated 07/10/2014 and the Legal notice dated 21/01/2015, the complainant had ever sent any communication with regard to theft of his vehicle to the OPs. It is further established from the documents placed on record that there is a total delay of 4 Months on the part of the complainant and he has not given any justified explanation for the same.

9.             The case law referred by the ld. counsel for the complainant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In case citied by the complainant there was a delay of 12 hours in intimation and in the present case unexplained delay of 4 Months, enabling the OPs to appoint any investigating agency. Hence the same cannot be considered.

10.                    Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the case titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd Vs Naresh Walia(Supra), we find no merits in the contentions made by  the ld. counsel for the complainant. In the present case it has been proved that the delay in intimation of 4 Months was due to the negligence of the complainant. Hence we find that the OPs have not committed any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim submitted after a period of 4 Months. The present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to cost. 

11.                    The arguments on the complaint were heard on 05.08.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:12.08.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)       President

 

(Veena Chahal)

Member

                                                                                                                                                                                                            (A.B.Aggarwal)

                                                                                    Member