DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM FATEHGARH SAHIB

Consumer Complaint  No.13 of 2018

                                      Date of institution          :         15.03.2018

                                      Date of decision             :         29.04.2019

Gurpreet Singh son of Dalbara Singh, Resident of Village Dhanaula, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, B.C. Khamanon, Opposite Grain Market Chandigarh Road, Khamanon, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Quorum

Sh. Kuljit Singh, President.

Sh. InderJit, Member

Present :      Sh.B.S. Januha, Advocate counsel for the complainant.                                     

              Sh.Amit Gupta, Adv. counsel for OP

ORDER

By Kuljit Singh, President

1. Complainant – Gurpreet Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant had filed a complaint on 08.12.2017 regarding insuranceclaim and this Forum had directed the OP to decide the insurance claim of complainant bearing Cover note Motor Vehicle Insurance No.CHD-D817124 dated 12.02.2016 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order of this Forum and had also granted permission to complainant to file fresh complaint on same cause of action if he is not satisfied with the decision of OP. So said complaint was withdrawn on 15.12.2017.  Complainant is owner of Bajaj Motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-23-H-5673, and same was insured from OP for the period from 12.02.2016 to 11.02.2017.  On 11.07.2016, the complainant parked his motorcycle in the shop of his relative at Village Behlolpur but when he came back to take the vehicle, the same was not available, as it had been stolen.  On same day, he reported the matter to the Police Station Machiwara and DDR No.8 dated 13.07.2016 had been registered.  He also informed the OP about theft of motorcycle and also requested to make payment of insurance but OP refused to pay the insurance amount.  He also issued legal notice dated 18.07.2017 but OP has not made the payment of insurance.  It has been prayed that OP be directed to pay the insurance amount of lost motorcycle having registration No.PB-23-H-5673 and also pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of complaint was issued to OP and the complaint is contested by the OP, who filed written reply. In reply to complaint, OP raised certain preliminary objections that complainant has obtained insurance policy in question subject to terms and conditions of the policy.  During the period of policy, complainant  intimated the theft loss of motorcycle on 11.07.2016 which was intimated in  writing to OP vide letter dated 15.07.2016 and accordingly, Sh.Zora Singh investigator was deputed to investigate the said loss.  During processing of claim, the OP had demanded some documents i.e. (1) Original or Duplicate registration certificate of vehicle (2) Original FIR copy of FIR No.50/16 of Police Station Machiwara (3) Original Keys of vehicle (4) Untraceable report issued by police authorities duly verified by Magistrate (5) Copy of letter written by complainant to DTO regarding intimation of theft of vehicle. But complainant failed to produce the same and reminder dated 09.01.2017, 28.06.2017, 07.11.2017 were issued to complainant in this regard and as complainant failed to produce the same, so claim of the complainant was closed as “No Claim” vide letter dated 07.12.2017 and contents of same are mentioned in reply of OP that:-                                                          “This has “This reference to our letter dated 16.9.16, 28.6.17 and 7.11.17 requesting therein to submit the following papers for processing the claim but till date we have not received the same from your side:-

1. Untraceable report duly accepted by court.
2. Latest status of theft from NCRB
3. Letter to dealer/service centre
4. Acknowledged copy of licensing authority.

Upon receipt of these documents we would be in position to process your claim for approval.After approval, you have to submit following documents:

1. R.C. book duly transferred in the name of “The Oriental Insurance Company Limited”.
2. Letter of subrogation and undertaking (copy enclosed)
3. Affidavit (copy enclosed)
4. Cancelled cheque having A/c No. and IFS code.

However, you are being given more opportunity to submit the above said documents and same must reach the insurance company.Please note that in case we have no response from you after the receipt of this letter, the claim shall stand closed as No Claim.”

          OP has not denied the claim but the same could not be decided for want of documents from complainant and as such present complaint is premature. On merits, answering OP has cited some preliminary objections and prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs.

4. In order to prove his complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence photocopy of Insurance Policy Ex.C-1, photocopy of DDR as Ex.C-2, Legal Notice Ex.C-3, Postal receipt Ex.C-4, his affidavit Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal, the counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith true copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined written arguments of both the parties and the record of the case very carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that on finding his motorcycle not available in the parking of his relative at Village Behlolpur where he had parked the same on 11.07.2016, complainant intimated the matter to PS Machiwara in this respect.  It was on the basis of the said intimation the DDR No.8 of 13.07.2016 was registered at Police StationMachiwara. Thereafter, complainant alongwith copy of DDR and copy of documents of the motorcycle approached the OP personally but his claim was not settled. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to relief claimed in the complaint.  Learned counsel for the opposite party repelled the aforesaid contentions on the grounds that there is a clear condition on the cover note of the policy that claim for theft of vehicle is not payable if complainant has not lodged FIR of its occurrence.  In the present case since the matter was reported to the OP on same date and also in writing on 15.07.2016 which is it also admitted by the OP that due intimation had been supplied to OP.
7. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record.   Specific stand of the complainant in his complaint affidavit Ex.C-5 is that when he failed to trace out his motorcycle, he, on the same day reported to this effect to the Police StationMachiwara.  In support of his this stand, he has also produced on record a copy of the said DDR as Ex.C-2 which is apparently dated as 13.07.2016 on the top of it.  OP has also verified the said DDR through its deputed surveyor who reported vide Ex.R-4 “I visited the said police post in order to verify the said police report and contacted Munshi who checked up the record and confirmed that the said vehicle has not been traced out till date.”  Now the question would arise as to whether reporting the matter vide said DDR by the complainant to the police would suffice? In our considered view the answer to this question is in the affirmative.  There is no denial of the fact that claim for theft of vehicle is not reported to insurance company, however occurrence of theft is reported to the police promptly.  The reason for this is that the police is the best agency to investigate the case particularly when there is no requirement of immediate reporting of theft under a policy to enable the OP to use its own resources to trace out the vehicle.  Moreover, OP – Insurance Company cannot be said to have been prejudiced in not reporting the occurrence of theft to it within the period prescribed. 
8. In this case,reporting of the theft which took place on 11.07.2016 in respect of insured vehicle i.e. motorcycle make Bajaj bearing No.PB23-H-5673 owned by the complainant is not disputed.  It is also not disputed that the said vehicle has not since been traced out.  As per policy cover Insured Declared Value of vehicle is mentioned as Rs.33,700/-.  Therefore, the OP is liable to pay the full claim amount of Rs.33,700/- to the complainant alongwith appropriate compensation for harassment and mental agony faced by him for not settling his claim and litigation costs for the avoidable litigation for which he has been compelled by the OP to seek redressal of his grievance. 
9. In the light of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by Gurpreet Singh – complainant is partly accepted with a direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs.33,700/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the OPs will pay interest @9% per annum on the total amount of Insured Declared Value, compensation and litigation costs till realization.
10. Copy of order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to record room

Pronounced: 29.04.2019                                               (Kuljit Singh)

                                                                          President

                                                                    (Inderjit)

                                                                   Member