Haryana

Karnal

CC/34/2020

Raman Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amrit Pal Singh

16 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 34 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.15.01.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:16.11.2022

 

Raman Kumar son of Shri Raj Kumar, resident of Gali no.6, R.K.Puram, Karnal, District Karnal. Aadhar card no.5462-4628-8037.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Registered office Iffco Sadan, C-1, District Center, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

 

2.     The Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office ground floor, Hafed Building, Sectoe-12, Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Amrit Pal Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Mohit Goyal, counsel for the opposite parties.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant got insured his vehicle motorcycle makes Bajaj CT 100 bearing registration no.HR-05-AZ-4515 from the OPs, vide policy no.M-3013314, valid from 13.09.2018 to 12.09.2023 and OPs have received total premium amount of Rs.2828/- for five year advance premium amount. On 12.07.2019, complainant going to Kurukshetra from his house situated at Part-II, R.K. Puram, Karnal, when he reached near Reliance Petrol Pump, G.T. Road Taraori, then a vagabond cow came before the motorcycle  of the complainant and caused accident and due to the said accident, the complainant sustained serious, grievous and multiple injuries on his vital part of the body. The occupant of road got admitted the complainant in Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College, Hospital, Karnal and thereafter complainant referred to PGI Chandigarh due to his serious condition. It is further averred that nobody look after the motorcycle of the complainant and some unknown person stolen the same and all the necessary documents i.e. Aadhar card, PAN card, driving licence and registration certificate of vehicle has been lost with the motorcycle in the said accident. The family members of the complainant remained busy to rescue the life of the complainant and due to which nobody though about the motorcycle or intimation regarding the accident to the police or OPs. The complainant remained admitted in the Nehru Hospital, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh from 13.07.2019 to 15.07.2019 and thereafter recovering from his injuries sustained in the said accident, concerned police got lodged the FIR no.210 dated 19.07.2019 under section 379 IPC in Police Station Taraori, Karnal. Thereafter, intimation of the lost vehicle has been made to the OPs and further moved an application for claiming the loss of stolen vehicle to the OPs and complainant already completed all the formalities for getting the compensation of stolen vehicle but OPs inspite of passing the claim of complainant lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.10.2019 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OPs are willing to settle the claim. Certain documents/clarifications are required from the complainant side such as loan account statement of stolen vehicle, non-repossession letter from financer/bank original keys of stolen vehicle, untrace report certified by SHO/Police Station, explanation of reason for delay in lodging the FIR and explanation on reason for delay intimation to OP company in respect of reported theft of the vehicle in question. OPs repeatedly demanded the aforesaid documents/explanations from the complainant, vide letter dated 18.09.2019, 23.10.2019 and finally on 20.11.2019. The complainant instead of supplying the said documents/clarification in order to put undue pressure filed the present complaint. The complainant cannot opt to byepass the very basic requirement of furnishing the required documents with the OPs. It is further pleaded that the theft of the vehicle occurred on 12.07.2019 whereas the FIR was recorded after a gap of seven days i.e. 19.07.2019. Intimation of theft of the vehicle in question was also given to the OPs on 01.08.2019 i.e. after the gap of 19 days of the loss/theft without any explanation. Thus, breach of condition no.1 of the policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of driving licence Ex.C2, copy of FIR Ex.C3, copy of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.C4, copy of case history of PGI Chandigarh Ex.C5, copy of OPD card of PGI Chandigarh Ex.C6, copy of legal notice Ex.C7, postal receipts Ex.C8 an Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 15.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sameer Gupta Ex.OP1/A, copy of letters dated 18.09.2019, 23.10.2019, 20.11.2019, 08.09.2019 Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4, copy of investigation report Ex.OP5, copy of FIR Ex.OP6, copy of terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 19.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got insured his vehicle from the OPs. On 12.07.2019 the said vehicle of the complainant met with accident and in the said accident, complainant sustained serious, grievous and multiple injuries. The occupant of road got admitted the complainant in Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College, Hospital, Karnal and thereafter complainant referred to PGI Chandigarh due to his serious condition. He further argued that nobody looked after the motorcycle of the complainant and some unknown person stole the same. The complainant remained admitted in the Nehru Hospital, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh from 13.07.2019 to 15.07.2019 and thereafter recovering from his sustained injuries,  concerned police got lodged the FIR no.210 dated 19.07.2019 under section 379 IPC in Police Station Taraori, Karnal. Thereafter, intimation of the lost vehicle has been made to the OPs and further moved an application for claiming the loss of stolen but OPs inspite of passing the claim of complainant lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that Certain documents/clarifications are required from the complainant, vide which OPs sent letter and its reminders dated 18.09.2019, 23.10.2019 and  20.11.2019 but complainant did not supply the  documents to the OPs. He further argued that the theft of the vehicle occurred on 12.07.2019 whereas the FIR was recorded on 19.07.2019 after a gap of seven days. Intimation of theft of the vehicle in question was also given to the OPs on 01.08.2019 i.e. after the gap of 19 days of the loss/theft without any explanation and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy.

11.           The OPs have taken a plea that complainant has not supplied the requisite documents as demanded by the OPs, vide letter dated 18.09.2019 Ex.OP1 and reminders dated 23.10.2019 Ex.OP2, 20.11.2019 Ex.OP3 and 08.08.2019 Ex.OP4, vide which OPs have demanded such as loan account statement of stolen vehicle; non-repossession letter from financer/bank; original keys of stolen vehicle; untrace report certified by SHO/Police Station; explanation of reason for delay in lodging the FIR and explanation of reason for delay intimation to OPs company in respect of reported theft of the vehicle in question.

12.           The claim of the complainant has not been decided by the OPs on the ground that complainant has failed to submit the loan account statement of the stolen vehicle, non-repossession letter from financer/bank; original keys of stolen vehicle and untrace report etc. Without the loan account statement, non-repossession letter and untrace report, theft claim cannot be proceeded further.

13.           The complainant has relied upon the final report Ex.C4 prepared by the police, the proof as to whether the same has been accepted by the Illaqa Magistrate or not, has not been placed on file by the complainant. In the theft case, untrace report is very essential document to settle the claim.

14.         In view of the above observation, we are of the considered view that at this stage, the present complaint is premature and we dispose of the same with the liberty to the complainant to submit the documents as required by the OPs for deciding the claim as discussed above and after the submission on the same, OPs are hereby directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 30 days. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.11.2022                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

  Member                   Member