DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 192 of 17-07-2008<br /> Decided on : 23-12-2008 <br /> <br /> Ranjodh Singh S/o Shavinder Singh R/o St. No. 3, Ward No. 1 Mandi Dabwali Now R/o near Regional Centre Punjabi University Guru Ki Nagri Bathinda, Distt. Bathinda. ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager The Mall Bathinda.<br /> 2.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager, Subidha Bazar, Mandi Dabwali.<br /> 3.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Mumbai 400001 through its M.D.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Naveen Goyal, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> PRITAM SINGH DHANOA, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. This complaint has been filed by Sh. Ranjodh Singh S/o Shavinder Singh, resident of Mandi Dabwali, presently residing near Regional Centre Punjabi University at Bathinda, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') on the averments briefly described as under :-<br /> That complainant purchased Bullet Motorcycle (Royal Enfield) vide bill No. 584 dated 14.8.07 for a sum of Rs. 67,900/-. The Registration No. HR-25B-2391 was allotted to the motorcycle of the complainant bearing Chasis no. 7B-728676H and Engine No. 7B-7286676 H. The complainant secured comprehensive Insurance Policy No. 353702/31/07/01/00000982 from the opposite parties for his motorcycle for the period from 14-08-07 to 13-08-08. He also deposited a sum of Rs. 1481/- on account of premium by declaring Insured's Declared Value of his vehicle as Rs. 64,505/-. The above said motorcycle of the complainant was stolen on 1-11-2007 alongwith registration certificate and cover note by some unidentified person on account of which he got registered F.I.R. No. 681 on 02-11-2007 under Section 379 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda. The complainant completed all the formalities and lodged claim and delivered to the opposite parties copies of untraced report prepared by Police and other documents alongwith keys of the motorcycle but they have failed to honour the claim of the complainant despite being contacted by him several times personally and on telephone. He also served notice dated 07-06-2008 upon the opposite parties through his counsel, but the amount of the Insurance policy, has not been paid to him, by the opposite parties till the date of presentation of complaint i.e. 17-07-2008. Hence this complaint.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complaint has been filed by the complainant, to damage reputation and goodwill of the opposite parties; that intricate questions of law and facts are involved, in the complaint for adjudication of which, parties need to lead voluminous evidence, as such complaint cannot be disposed of, in just and proper manner, by adopting summary procedure, by this Forum; that the complainant has not approached the court with clean hands because he has concealed the material facts from the knowledge of the Forum; that the complaint is pre mature as the claim lodged by the complainant, is being processed, by the opposite parties and the same could not be finalised, because complainant has failed, to deliver “untraced report” duly accepted, by the concerned Magistrate; that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide, the instant complaint as cause of action to the complainant, to file the same has arisen at Dabwali, in the State of Haryana; that complainant is not consumer, in the purview of the Act; that he had no locus standi to file the complaint and the same being frivolous and vexatious is liable to be dismissed, with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that Insurance policy in question had been purchased for the period mentioned in the complaint by the complainant. The factum of purchase of motorcycle by the complainant for a sum of Rs. 67,900/- on 14-08-2007 vide bill No. 584 has not been specifically denied but it it submitted that these facts are matter of record. It is also admitted that an amount of Rs. 1481/- was deposited by the complainant on account of premium on Insured's Declared Value of Rs. 64,505/-. However, they deny for want of knowledge that theft of motorcycle of the complainant took place on 01-11-2007 alongwith registration certificate and Insurance and on that score, he got registered FIR No. 584 on 02-11-2007 under Section 379 I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda. It is submitted that legal requirements sought to be full filled by the opposite parties, has not been complied with, by the complainant and as such, his complaint is pre mature and is not maintainable. Rest of the averments, mentioned in the complaint, have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs. <br /> 3. On being called by the Forum, complainant adduced his affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of the documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-7 before closing his evidence. Sh. P.K. Jain, Sr. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Bathinda has furnished his affidavit Ex. R-1 and the opposite parties have also tendered copies of documents Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-8.<br /> 4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence produced on record by them, carefully, with their kind assistance.<br /> 5. At the outset learned counsel for the complainant Sh. Naveen Goyal, Advocate has submitted that opposite parties had admitted that the Insurance policy was purchased, by the complainant for his motorcycle and as per evidence adduced on record by him theft of the same has taken place during validity period of policy issued by the opposite parties , but they have not released the amount of the policy despite being approached by the complainant several times. Learned counsel has contended that plea taken by the opposite parties that complaint is pre mature and that the complainant has failed, to produce the copies of untraced report duly accepted by the Magistrate is not justified, because as per terms and conditions of the policy there is no requirement of submission of order passed by the Magistrate, on the untraced report. Learned counsel has argued that complainant has suffered, physical and mental harassment due to delay in making payment of Insurance claim by the opposite parties and had to file the complaint, for the said relief before this Forum, as such, opposite parties are also liable, to pay him compensation and cost alongwith interest @18% P.A. w.e.f. the date of accident, till payment.<br /> 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate, has submitted, that complainant has failed to submit order passed, by the Court accepting untraced report, prepared by the police, as such, delay has taken place, in finalising his claim. Hence, complaint is pre mature and he is not entitled, to payment of any compensation and cost. Learned counsel has further submitted even if, this Forum comes to the conclusion that amount of policy is liable to be paid by the opposite parties, then an amount @5% of Insured's Declared Value has to be deducted on account of depreciation and complainant has to transfer ownership rights in favour of Insurance Company. He further submitted that complainant is not entitled to payment of interest more than 6% P.A. on Insured's Declared Value from the date of submission of untraced report and other documents i.e. 20.2.08 and not from the date of filing of claim or from the date of theft. In support of his intentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on 2001(2) CLT page 95 Kiran Bedi Vs. National Insurance Company and another, wherein truck was insured for a sum of Rs. 6.00 Lacs. Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh held that complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,70,000/- after allowing depreciation of 5% on the amount of Insured's Declared Value. Learned counsel has further relied on 2003(1) CLT 522 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.L. Modi wherein interest awarded @12% on amount of compensation by District Forum was reduced to 9% P.A following ratio judgement delivered in “AIR SCW 5 S. Kaushnuma Begum Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,” Learned counsel for the opposite parties also relied upon 2004(3) CLT page 180 Ramesh Khaitan Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, wherein it has been held that reasonable period of taking decision of the claim by the Insurer is three months. Since the opposite parties have failed and deliberately neglected to provide their service to settle the claim even after the lapse of two and half years, therefore, it was held that there is deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties.<br /> 7. Admittedly motorcycle in question purchased by the complainant was insured with the opposite parties for the period from 14-08-2007 to 13-08-2008 and its theft had taken place on 01-11-2007 as is evident from copies of Invoice Ex. C-3, F.I.R. Ex. C-4 and Vehicle Inquiry Report Ex. C-5. The complainant has also produced on record copy of the Registration Certificate Ex. C-7 wherein the motorcycle purchased by him has shown to be his ownership. This fact is not disputed by the opposite parties. It is also admitted fact that complainant has secured Insurance cover for his vehicle by declaring its value as Rs. 64,505/- as against actual value of Rs. 67,900/-. The amount of Insurance cannot be claimed beyond the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties and Insured's Declared Value given by the insured at the time of taking Insurance cover Note.<br /> 8. The plea of the opposite parties is that complaint is pre mature because complainant has failed to furnish the order passed by the court accepting the untraced report issued by the police. However, learned counsel for the opposite parties has failed to draw our attention to any provision contained in Insurance Policy Ex. C-2 or any rule or by laws of the Insurance contained in statute under which production of copy of order passed by the court accepting the untraced report in theft case may be precedent for honouring the Insurance claim. As per plea of the complainant as substantiated by documentary evidence theft of the motorcycle has taken place alongwith its registration certification. The Complainant has further got issued notice dated 07.06.2008 upon the opposite parties for payment of amount of compensation whereas complaint has been filed on 18-07-2008. The complainant has submitted copy of untraced report prepared by the Police and other relevant documents in the office of the opposite parties on 20-02-2008 before the date of filing of complaint. Hence, we are unable to accept the plea taken by the opposite parties that complaint is pre mature. <br /> 9. As per evidence brought on record, theft has taken place on 01-11-2007 whereas Insurance policy has been issued by the opposite parties on 14-08-2007 i.e. within the period of six months from the date of issuance of the Insurance policy. In view of ratio of Judgement delivered in 2001 (2) CLT 95 (Supra), the depreciation on the Insured's Declared Value has to be allowed @ 5 percent. The amount of depreciation worked out at the above said rate on the Insured's Declared Value of Rs. 64,505/- comes to Rs. 3250/-. After deduction of said amount, the opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 61,255/- on account of Insurance cover. The complainant is also entitled to payment of interest @9% P.A. from the date he submitted the documents i.e. 20-02-2008 till the date of actual payment as verdict delivered in 2003(1) CLT 522 (Supra) and not from the date of theft or from the date of filing of claim as claimed by the learned counsel for the complainant. It is well settled that interest and compensation cannot be awarded simultaneously in a complaint by the Forum. As such, complainant is not entitled to any amount on account of compensation.<br /> 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint filed by the complainant with cost of Rs. 1,000/- and direct the parties to do as under :- <br /> (i) The Opposite parties would pay Rs. 61,255/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. from 20-02-2008 till payment if he transfers the motorcycle in its name within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case he fails to transfer the motorcycle in its name, he would not be entitled to interest after the expiry of 45 days after the receipt of copy of this order. In case, he transfer the ownership of the motorcycle after 45 days after the receipt of copy of this order, he would be entitled to receive Rs. 61255/- alongwith interest upto 45 days after receipt of copy of this order.<br /> (ii) The Complainant would transfer ownership of the motorcycle in the name of The New India Assurance Company Limited, within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. <br /> 11. Compliance with regard to cost be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 23-12-2008 (Pritam Singh Dhanoa)<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br />