Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/236

Hardhan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance co. - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Manohar

03 Feb 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      236 of 2019

Date of Institution:   25.09.2019

Date of Decision :    03.02.2020

Hardhan Singh aged about 35 years son of Malkeet Singh r/o Dhillon Patti Panjgrain Khurd, District Moga.

                                                                           .........Complainant

Versus

1.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Head Office, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002 through its Managing Director.

2.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. having its Branch Office at Baja Road, Jaitu, District Faridkot through its Branch Manager.                                                                                  

.............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

 

Present:  Sh Ram Manohar, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

               Sh Deep Chand Goel, Ld Counsel for OPs.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against  OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim for theft of

cc no.-236 of 2019

his motor cycle and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

2                   Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the owner of motor cycle Hero Splendor Plus bearing registration no.PB-69C 0119 model 2018 and he got insured his vehicle from OPs vide Insurance Policy no.233207/31/2018/1541 valid for the period from 19.01.2018 to 18.01.2019 and at the time of issuance of said insurance  Policy, Ops took signatures of complainant on blank proposal form. Ops did not supply any terms and conditions to complainant. On 5.11.2018 at about 8.15 p.m. when complainant was coming back home from his work, he stopped on road Panj Grain Kalan for urine emergency and suddenly, one white coloured swift car came towards him. Two persons with covered faces were present in said car, they took away his motor cycle and ran away towards the village alongwith their car. Complainant immediately informed Police Panjgrain Kalan, Faridkot and then, complainant alongwith Police tried to search his vehicle, but they could not find the same. F.I.R. No.2 dated 7.01.2019 under Section 379/34 IPC was got registered by complainant in Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura, District Faridkot. Next day, complainant gave due information regarding said theft to OP-2  but  they  asked  him  to  provide  copy        of  FIR and on this complainant told them that Police is still making search for his vehicle and therefore, FIR is not lodged by Police.

cc no.-236 of 2019

Thereafter, complainant requested Police to lodge FIR and after receiving the copy of FIR, complainant again approached Ops, completed all formalities, submitted requisite documents to them and requested them to pass his genuine insurance claim on account of theft of his vehicle. OPs assured to clear the claim but despite several requests and issuance of legal notice to them, they have not made a single penny on account of theft of his insured vehicle. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                  The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 1.10.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.

4                       On receipt of the notice, the OPs filed written statement wherein asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect. It is averred that complainant himself did not lodge any claim regarding theft of his vehicle with them. it is denied that Issuing Officer of OPs obtained signatures of complainant on blank proposal form at the time of issuance of insurance policy. It is averred that at the time of issuance of policy in question, all the terms and conditions were duly explained and supplied to complainant. It is further averred that               

cc no.-236 of 2019

as complainant did not lodge any claim with them and no investigation regarding alleged theft was made by them and  therefore, alleged theft is denied by them for want of verification. Complainant is required to lodge claim with them regarding theft of his vehicle and then OPs would make investigation and verify the claim and then, as per law, claim of the complainant would be settled as per law if found genuine. They have no knowledge if complainant has filed claim with PP, Panj Grain Kalan. It is averred that complainant approached office of answering Ops at Jaitu and told about theft of his vehicle. Complainant was told to bring copy of F.I.R and other documents, but he told officials that Police is still in search of Motor Cycle and Police did not lodge the F.I.R and went back and thereafter, he did not turn up again. It is averred that when complainant did not lodge any claim regarding theft of his insured vehicle, then, question of any assurance by them does not arise at all. However, it is admitted that complainant served legal notice to them, which was duly replied by them wherein it was clearly stated that no claim was lodged by complainant with them. It is averred that present complaint is premature as he has not lodged claim regarding theft of his vehicle with them and therefore, complaint filed by him is premature. Complainant neither approached them nor submitted any documents to them. It is further averred that they never refused to pay the claim of complainant. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief

 

cc no.-236 of 2019

sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                           Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-W1/A and documents Ex C-1 to C-10 and then, closed the evidence.

6                           In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Vikas Kataria Ex OP-1, document Ex OP-2 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                     We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                           The case of the complainant is that his insured motor cycle Hero Splendor Plus bearing registration no.PB-69C 0119 model 2018 was stolen by some unidentified persons when he was coming back home from his work place. He gave due intimation regarding this theft incident to Police as well OPs. Despite efforts, Police could not search his motor cycle. Grievance of the complainant is that though he has completed all formalities and submitted requisite documents to Ops, but till they have not made payment of insurance claim to complainant on account of theft of his motor cycle. On the other hand, OPs took plea and

cc no.-236 of 2019

stressed mainly on the point that there is no deficiency in service on their part as complainant neither approached them regarding insurance claim on account of theft of his vehicle, nor he has submitted any documents to them.  If complainant had given them intimation regarding alleged theft of his vehicle, they would have appointed Surveyor to investigate and assess the loss, but complainant did not approach them. moreover, OPs brought before the Forum that they are ready to clear the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy subject to submission of requisite documents by complainant to them. They have never denied any claim to complainant as he never approached them to inform them about said theft incident. Complaint filed by complainant is premature and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  

9                            From the careful perusal of evidence and documents placed on record and pleading made by parties in above discussion, it is observed that there is no dispute regarding insurance of vehicle of complainant with OPs. OPs brought before the Forum and stressed mainly on the point that complainant has not lodged any claim regarding theft of his vehicle with them. Document Ex OP-2 placed on record which is copy of letter dated 30.10.2019, clearly reveals the fact that no intimation regarding said alleged theft of motor cycle of complainant was given by him to OPs. It is clearly mentioned in this letter that when complainant approached the office, he was advised to given intimation and FIR etc, but later he did not visit the office and therefore, their office has not any over

 

cc no.-236 of 2019

 

due/ OD claim file or other claim related documents with them. ld counsel for Ops showed willingness to clear the claim regarding theft of vehicle of complainant subject to completion of mandatory formalities and submission of requisite documents with them.

10                                            From the above discussion and in the light of document Ex OP-2, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as complainant has not lodged his claim with OPs. Complainant himself has not completed requisite formalities and has also not furnished required documents mandatory for processing the claim with OPs. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being premature. The Complainant is directed to lodge claim regarding theft of his vehicle with Opposite Parties and to submit all the required documents to OPs for settlement of claim within one month of receipt of the copy of this order. The Opposite parties are further directed to decide the claim of the complainant regarding theft of his vehicle within 45 days from the date of submission of documents by complainant with them as per terms and conditions of the policy. If the complainant does not feel satisfied with the decision of the Opposite Parties regarding  claim of his vehicle, then, in than eventuality, he is at liberty to file afresh complaint on same cause of action. However, in peculiar circumstances of

 

cc no.-236 of 2019

the present complaint case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 03.02.2020

                                                (Param Pal Kaur)              (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                  Member                                    President