Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1477

Bhupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

K.C.Malhotra

10 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No. 1477 of 2011

 

                                                Date of Institution: 04.10.2011.

                             Date of Decision  : 10.02.2015.

 

Bhupinder Singh son of Jagtar Singh, resident of Village Joga Sangha, Post Office Nurmahal, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

                                                     …..Appellant/complainant.

Versus

 

1.       United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Unit No.2,      S-9, Industrial Area, Jalandhar-144001 through its Branch Manager.

2.       United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office No.2,         2nd and 3rd Floor, Syal House, Lajpat Nagar Market, Jalandhar          through its Divisional Manager.

                                                     ….Respondents/opposite parties

    

Appeal against order dated 02.08.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.

 

Quorum:-

 

     Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

             Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.   

Present:-

 

     For the appellant             :     Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate

For the respondents        :     Sh. Varun Katyal, Advocate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                 

                    The appellant (complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against order dated 02.08.2011 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar, (in short, “the District Forum”), against the respondents of this appeal (opposite parties in the complaint) challenging the order of the Forum.

2.                The complainant Bhupinder Singh has filed the complaint against the OPs under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the "Act"), on the averments that he purchased a Johan Deere-5104 green color tractor bearing registration No.PB-08-BB-8247 model 2007, which was insured in his name with OP No.1, vide insurance cover note No.012015 dated 04.07.2007 operative from 04.07.2007 to 03.07.2008 under a comprehensive insurance policy. The complainant paid the premium of Rs.6245/- to the OPs for insurance of his above tractor. The policy document has not been issued by the OPs to the complainant by ignoring their mandatory obligation. The above referred insured tractor, unfortunately was stolen on the night of 06.08.2007 in the Farm House of the complainant at Village Joga Sangha post office Nurmahal, District Jalandhar by some unknown person. FIR was lodged, vide No.131 of 2007 dated 08.08.2007 about the theft of the tractor under Section 379 IPC at Police Station Nurmahal District Jalandhar. The intimation of theft of the tractor was duly given to OP No.1 by the complainant, vide letter dated 10.08.2007. The complainant preferred claim for own damage claim with OP No.1 by submitting motor claim form, copy of FIR, driving licence to OP No.1, which was registered as the claim under No.201302 /31/07/01/90000112. The complainant also sent reply dated 15.01.2009 through speed post to the letter of the OPs dated 25.11.2008. The complainant received another letter wrongly dated 15.01.2008 instead of dated 15.01.2009 from OP No.2 and complainant duly replied it through his counsel K.C. Malhotra Advocate Jalandhar, on 20.09.2009 under speed post. The version of OPs that complainant was not interested in pursuing his claim is misconceived and baseless. The complainant has complied with the requirements, but his claim has been delayed by OPs by adopting dilatory tactics. The complainant also sent application dated 15.01.2009 under RTI Act 2005 to branch manager of OP No.2 to supply information/documents therein, but they have not been supplied, which was bound to be supplied within time. Personal visits of the complainant to the OPs also bore no result. It is mandatory for the OPs to settle the claim of the insurer within 30 days on the date of survey report under Regulation No.9(5) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder's Interests Regulation, 2002). The complainant is entitled to receive the claim of Rs.3,89,500/- being insured declared value of insured tractor along with interest @ 18% p.a. till actual payment besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- for his mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the litigation. The complainant has accordingly filed the complaint with the above referred claim against the OPs.

3.                The OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was pleaded in preliminary objections by OPs that complainant has been estopped by his own acts and conducts from filing the complaint. It was admitted that the complainant purchased the insurance policy for new tractor on the date of its purchase, operative from 04.07.2007 to 03.07.2008. It is also admitted by the OPs that the said tractor was stolen and FIR was lodged on 08.08.2007 at the Police Station Nurmahal by the complainant about it. As per version of the complainant, the registration certificate of the tractor was not yet issued and hence the tractor was not registered with registering authority Jalandhar till then, as averred by the OPs. The OPs pleaded that they wrote many letters to the complainant on 19.09.2008, 11.11.2008, 20.11.2008 and 15.01.2009 to inform the company as to when he had applied for the registration of the certificate, but he failed in this regard. It is evident that the application for registration of tractor was made after the theft of the tractor by the complainant. The complainant was not holding proper and effecting driving licence and hence complaint is premature. The claim of the complainant has been delayed for non supply of date, on which, he applied for registration of the tractor, as such, OPs are not responsible for the settlement of the claim. The OPs denied any deficient in service on their part, in this case. On merits, the OPs averred that FIR is not clear whether the tractor was stolen, which was insured with the OPs or it was some other tractor. The OPs asked the complainant for some more information, but complainant never supplied it. The claim has been delayed due to non supply of the information by the complainant. The information under RTI Act was supplied on 31.03.2009 and OPs, thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                 The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.C-A and C-B along with photocopies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-18 and closed the evidence. As against it, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Deepak Gupta Divisional Manager Ex.OPR-A along with documents Ex.OPR-1 to OPR-10 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and argument, the District Forum Jalandhar disposed of the complaint by directing the complainant to send all the documents to the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, whereupon, the OPs will settle the claim within a period of one month from the date of receipt of documents and information. Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum dated 02.08.2011, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. We have carefully examined the affidavit of Bhupinder Singh complainant Ex.C-1 on the record and his additional affidavit Ex.C-B, in support of his case. Ex.C-1 is motor claim form, Ex.C-2 is the translation from Punjabi to English, Ex.C-3 is the intimation given by the complainant to the OPs regarding the theft of his tractor, Ex.C-4 is the report of the police for sending the case untraced, Ex.C-5 is report of Gopal Detective Agency with regard to finding no clue regarding the theft of tractor, Ex.C-6 is the purchase memo of the tractor for Rs.4,10,000/- by complainant on 04.07.2007 from Navyug Motors Jalandhar, Ex.C-7 is intimation to the D.T.O Jalandhar regarding verification of driving  licence no.1228 of Bhupinder Singh complainant; it is reported that the complainant held LTV driving licence from 24.04.2006 to 23.04.2009, Ex. C-8 & C-9 are the copies of driving licence of the complainant, Ex.C-10 is legal notice sent to the OPs and C-11 is the copy of receipt, Ex.C-12 is the reply sent to the complainant by the OPs, Ex.C-13 is letter of complainant to Branch Manager and Ex.C-14 is postal receipt thereof, Ex.C-15 is insurance cover note, Ex.C-16 is the letter of demand of documents sent to the complainant by the OPs, Ex.C-17 is the copy of FIR regarding the theft of the tractor lodged by complainant and Ex.C-18 is the form of certificate of registration.  As against it, the OPs relied upon affidavit of Deepak Gupta Divisional Manager of United India Insurance Company Limited Ex.OPR-A; it is stated in this affidavit that the delay took place in the settlement of the claim on account of non-supply of the date on which the complainant applied for the registration of the tractor. That FIR which does not depict regarding the theft of the tractor. Rest of the averments regarding insurance of the tractor and intimation sent by the complainant regarding its loss by theft is not disputed in this case, Ex.OPR-1 is the package policy of the tractor, Ex.OPR-2 is the driving licence of the complainant, Ex.OPR-3 is the letter addressed to complainant, similarly the letter Ex.OPR-4 and OPR-5, OPR-6 are the registered notice and copy of FIR is Ex.OP-7 and report of D.T.O. Jalandhar regarding verification of R.C. of vehicle No.PB-08-BB-8247 are on the record and guidelines for assisting disposal of claims vide Ex.R-9.

6.                 From perusal of the above referred evidence on the record, coupled with the submissions of the counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide this appeal. It is an undisputed fact that tractor of complainant was insured with the OPs. The tractor was insured on the date of its theft, the copy of FIR is on the record. Some correspondence took place between the parties as transpired on the record, regarding this claim. The contention of the OPs is that complainant has not supplied the information and documents and, hence, the claim could not be proceeded with. On the other hand, the submission of the appellant/complainant is that they have been duly supplied and OPs are sitting over his claim. We find that OPs neither accepted the claim of complainant nor repudiated it. The submission of the OPs is that it a pre-mature complaint. The emphasis of the OPs is that documents and information have not been supplied by the complainant and hence, they could not proceed with his claim. The District Forum, thus, gave direction to the complainant to send all documents and necessary information to the OPs as demanded, whereupon, the OPs were directed to decide the insurance claim of the complainant in time bound manner. We find that the order of the District is quite sustainable in law. We find no ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum in this appeal. The insurance claim of the complainant has neither been repudiated nor accepted, till now, and it is still pending. So, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to give a direction to complainant now appellant to supply the demanded documents and necessary information to the OPs, whereupon, the OPs are directed to decide the claim case of the complainant within a time bound manner. The order passed by the District Forum, thus, does not suffer from any illegality or material infirmity, in our view.

7.                 As a result of our above discussions, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

8.                 Arguments in this appeal were heard on 09.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                 (J. S. KLAR)

                                                   PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                          (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                    MEMBER

 

February  10, 2015.                                                                                   

(MM)