Complainant Varun Chib through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite party be directed to release the amount of insurance claim along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of theft to till its realization along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of physical as well as mental harassment suffered by the complainant from the hands of the opposite party and also Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service by opposite party in favour of complainant all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he was the owner of “Splendor Plus” motorcycle bearing registration No.UK-07-AB-9022 of “Hero Honda” make. The above said vehicle was insured with the opposite party vide policy no.35230031120100006156 for insurance value of Rs.24,000/- and the above said vehicle was insured for period from 13.2.2013 to 12.2.2014 and the total premium of Rs.797/- was paid by the complainant with the opposite party and the insurance policy was issued in his favour and as such he is consumer of the opposite party. It was pleaded that on 28.4.2013 at about 10.30 P.M. the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen in the area of Phase-V Mohali and the FIR bearing No.101 dated 30.4.2013 under section 379 IPC was got registered at Police Station Phase-I S.A.S. Nagar Mohali against the unknown person by Satish Minhas son of Jai Singh regarding the theft of the vehicle. It was pleaded that the matter was investigated by the Police of Police Station Phase-I S.A.S. Nagar Mohali and untraced report was prepared by the concerned police officer vide report dated 15.9.2013. It was further pleaded that after obtaining the above said report complainant approached the opposite party and submitted all the requisite documents with the opposite party as demanded by them to pass the insurance claim in his favour and opposite party assured him that they will pay his claim within days. It was next pleaded that after waiting some time complainant approached the opposite party and enquired about his insurance claim but the opposite party put off the matter with one pretext or the other and after a few days back when complainant telephonically called Investigating Officer of the opposite party he asked the complainant again to supply the copy of non-traceable report of police regarding vehicle and the complainant again send the same through registered post vide postal receipt dated 2.9.2015. It was also pleaded that after sending the above mentioned report complainant again approached the opposite party and enquired about his claim but the opposite party again put off the matter with one pretext or the other and a few days earlier they refused to accept the claim of the complainant with the excuse that they have closed the investigation regarding his claim and repudiated the same. It was pleaded that due to illegal act of the opposite party complainant had suffered mental as well as physical harassment which amounts to deficiency in service and the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party was totally illegal, arbitrary, inconsequence and on imaginary figure and as such the same is liable to rectified. It was further pleaded that the cause of action arose in favour of complainant and against the opposite party on 30.7.2013 when the complainant received the bill in question and a day earlier, when the opposite party finally refused to admit the claim of the complainant, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party was hopelessly pre-mature. It was stated that complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party but he had failed to supply the requisite documents. It was stated that for considering the claim of the complainant the untraceable report of the stolen vehicle dully issued by Illaqa Magistrate, N.C.R.B. Report and both the keys of the stolen vehicle are very much essential but after lodging the theft claim with the opposite party no such documents hade been supplied by the complainant despite repeated requests and due to non-filing of the above said documents insurance company was not in a position to consider about the claim and hence the same is still under process and had not been repudiated. It was further stated that as soon as insurance company received information regarding the loss of insured vehicle due to alleged theft the insurance company deputed Investigator Sh.Baljit Singh for investigation of the factum of the theft and for securitization of the documents of the complainant but the said Investigator could not investigate the matter due to non-filing of the above said requisite documents due to which matter is still under process and the claim had not been repudiated. It was next stated that due non-supplying of the documents insurance company was not in a position to consider the claim of the complainant under the terms and conditions of the policy and as such present claim of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this score only. On merits, it was denied that on 28.4.2013 the alleged vehicle of the complainant was stolen in the area of Phase-V Mohali and it was stated the alleged F.I.R. No.101 dated 30.4.2013 was no legal and valid, however, the legality and validity of the alleged F.I.R. is hereby challenged. It was further denied that matter was investigated by the Police and untraceable report was prepared by the Police Officer. It was stated that the untraceable report of the stolen vehicle duly issued by Illaqa Magistrate, N.C.R.B. Report and both keys of the stolen vehicle were very much essential but the complainant after lodging the theft claim with the opposite party had not supplied above said the requisite documents despite repeated requests so the claim of the complainant could not be considered. It was also denied that opposite party assured the complainant that his claim will be paid within days as alleged by him. It was stated that due to non-filing of the above mentioned requisite documents insurance company was not in a position to consider the claim of the complainant and hence the same was still under process and had not been repudiated. It was next stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and complaint of the complainant against the opposite party is false, frivolous, vexatious and in fructuous and liable to be dismissed. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
- Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajeshwar Singh Sr. Divisional Manager Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
6. We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides, while adjudicating the present complaint. From the pleadings and evidence on record we find that the opposite party has yet not finally decided the insurance claim of the claimant and have rather sought certain documents/information i.e Untraceable report, NCRB report and both keys of the stolen vehicle from the complainant but he failed to supply the same and due to non-filing of the requisite documents, insurance company was not in a position to consider/settle the claim of the complainant.
8. We find that the present complaint is premature since the opposite party has not yet finally decided the insurance claim and have rather sought certain documents/information from the complainant which the complainant is bound to supply. Thus we dispose of the complaint and direct the complainant to approach the opposite party and submit the requisite relevant documents/information desired by them for settling the insurance claim within 15 days of the receipt of these orders and further direct the opposite party insurance providers to decide the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy within 15 days of the receipt of documents from the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to decide insurance claim duly filed by the complainants duly verified as per the settled procedure laid down by their regulating Agency IRDA.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
(Jagdeep Kaur)
ANNOUNCED: Member.
FEB. 4, 2016.
*YP*
