Delhi

East Delhi

CC/561/2015

PRADEEP KR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

U.I.C - Opp.Party(s)

15 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  561/15

 

Shri Pradeep Kumar

S/o Shri Ramphal

R/o 66, Village Kanjhawala

Delhi                                                                                             ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Through its Managing Director/Auth. Signatory

D-8, C.S.A. Marg, Vikas Marg

Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi – 110 092                                            …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 31.07.2015

Judgement Reserved on : 15.11.2017

Judgement Passed on: 16.11.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Pradeep Kumar against      M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the vehicle of the complainant bearing    no. HR-55-F-5720 was insured with OP vide policy no. 2215003113P102875881 for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- and the amount of premium was Rs. 16,636/-. 

            On 27.02.2014, the vehicle met with an accident and was burnt with fire which was controlled by Fire-Brigade.  This matter was informed to OP on 02.03.2014 and the surveyor, appointed by OP, surveyed the same. 

            It was stated that on 04.03.2014, the complainant had a paralysis attack and therefore, he could not bring his vehicle to the place, where it was called by the insurance company.  After recovery, he visited the office of OP and was assured to release the claim after completion of some formalities.    

            On 17.03.2014, when the complainant alongwith mechanic went to see the car for taking the photographs, he was shocked to know that the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person.  On 01.06.2014, he registered a FIR no. 418/14 under Section 379 of IPC at P.S. Kanjhawala, Delhi.  Untraced report was filed in the court of Shri Sushil Anju Tyagi,     Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi.  The complainant sent a legal notice dated 19.06.2015, but did not get any reply. 

            It was further stated that the complainant visited the office of OP several times, but the amount of insurance claim has not been released.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for direction to OP to pay a sum of     Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation as well as insurance claim and      Rs. 21,000/- towards the litigation cost.    

3.         In reply, OP have stated that the complainant had not provided any estimate about the insured car.  When OP insisted the complainant, he informed that the said car was stolen.  Police report did not confirm the theft of insured car.

            It was further stated that the complainant negligently left the insured car unclaimed during his sickness and the attached medical bill was not of registered practitioner doctor.  Hence, there was no deficiency in service on their part.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.         The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein she has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted her pleas.

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of postal receipt dated 19.06.2015 (Ex.CW-1/1), FIR no. 418/14       (Ex.CW-1/2), untraced report dated 03.11.2014 (Ex.CW-1/3), charge sheet of the case FIR no. 418/14 (Ex.CW-1/4), Fire report dated 12.03.2014 (Ex.CW-1/5), medical prescription document (Ex.CW-1/6), RC of the vehicle (Ex.CW-1/7), insurance of the vehicle in question (Ex.CW-1/8), driving license of the complainant (Ex.CW-1/9)(OSR) and copy of legal notice dated 19.06.2015 (Ex.CW-1/10). 

            In defence, OP have examined Shri Y.R. Kanojia, Sr. Manager of OP, who has also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of police report (Annex. EX.DW1/A), copy of policy and its terms and conditions (Annex. EX.DW1/B) and copy of final reminder to the complainant (Annex. EX.DW1/C).

6.         We have heard Ld. counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant did not appear to argue.  The arguments which has been advanced on behalf of OP has been that the complainant did not provide the necessary documents for disposal of his claim.  He left the vehicle unattended on the spot of fire.  Thus, it has been stated that by not supplying the required documents, no cause of action have arisen to file the present complaint. 

            If a look is made to the documents placed by the complainant on record as well as of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP), it has been noticed that the complainant was directed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) through its final reminder of dated 24.07.2015 to submit the necessary documents.  It seems that the complainant have not submitted these documents and in the absence of that, the insurance company have not taken any action on the claim filed.  Since the complainant have not filed the required documents and his claim have not been rejected, no cause of action have arisen in favour of complainant to file the present complaint.   That being so, his complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.   

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)        

         Member                                                                        MEMBER

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

       President