Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1169/2012

jain Kumar S/o Ram Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

United Indi9a Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.C.Sharma

02 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 1169  of  2012.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 5.11.2012.

                                                                                              Date of decision: 2.7.2015.

Jain Kumar son of Shri Ram Dass, resident of House No.197, Chhota Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   …Complainant.

                                    Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited, near Telephone Exchange, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.    

 

                                                                                                                              … Opposite party.

 

                         

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Padam Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Karnesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OP. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Jain Kumar filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking directions to the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on account of theft of his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02U-9512 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of lodging claim till actual realization and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2200/- as litigation expenses.             

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had obtained insurance policy bearing No. 1101013110P001144402 valid from 9.10.2010 to 8.10.2011 for his motorcycle bearing No. HR-02U-9512 against the payment of premium from the OP i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar. It has been further stated that the aforesaid insurance policy covered the risk of theft also. It is further alleged that on 1.10.2011 the complainant had gone to Professor Colony, Yamuna Nagar in connection with his personal work and had parked the Motor Cycle in front of house No. 47F, Professor Colony, Yamuna Nagar after locking the same. After completing the work at about 8.30 P.M. when he came out from the said house and found that his Motor Cycle was missing and regarding this an intimation was given to P.S. City Yamuna Nagar on 2.10.2011 and an FIR No. 496 dated 4.10.2011 under section 379 IPC was lodged with the police station City, Yamuna Nagar. It is further stated that OP was duly informed and claim was lodged with the OP and further all the formalities were completed.  It has been further stated that he made several telephonic calls and also personally visited the office of OP but no response whatsoever has been received by him regarding the fate of his claim. It has been further stated that instead of settling the claim of the complainant, the OP issued a letter dated 12.9.2012 to the complainant in which he was directed to submit untraceable report and further issued another letter dated 30.10.2012 in which he was asked to submit the copy of transferred registration certificate in the name of Company whereas untraceable report issued by court already stood supplied to the OP. And further stated that when the original registration certificate of Motor Cycle was stolen with Motor Cycle then how he can transfer the same in the name of Company. Moreover, before getting any claim or information that his claim has been settled by the Company how he can transfer the Registration Certificate in the name of Company. Inspite of all, OP failed to settle the genuine claim, hence there is a great deficiency in service on the part of OP and complainant is entitled to get the insured amount of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith compensation and litigation expenses as prayed above. 

3.                     Upon notice, OP United India Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as maintainability, territorial jurisdiction, bad for non joinder and mis-joinder, locus standi and on merit it has been stated that complainant has miserably failed to supply the copy of registration certificate after transfering in the name of United India Insurance Company Ltd. despite repeated requests and reminders dated 12.9.2012 & 30.10.2012. But it is true that complainant had purchased the insurance policy bearing No.1101013110P001144402 valid from 9.10.2010 to 8.10.2011 from the OP and Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02U-9512 was insured for Rs. 30000/-. However, the said insurance policy contains terms and conditions which were agreed and accepted by the complainant at the time of purchasing the insurance policy. It has been further stated that an intimation regarding the alleged theft of Motor Cycle in question was received on 7.10.2011 and the OP immediately registered the claim and deputed Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, an investigator for investigating the facts of the case. The complainant was also requested through a letter dated 12.9.2012 & 30.12.2012 for supplying the untraceable report issued by the court and also requested to supply the copy of registration certificate duly transferred in the name of United India Insurance Company Ltd. It has been further stated that the insured declared value of the vehicle was Rs. 30,000/-.  Lastly prayed that as the complainant failed to supply the requisite documents, hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP and complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

4.                     To prove his case, counsel for the complainant  has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Annexure C-1 Photo copy of FIR No. 496 dated 4.10.201 ,  Annexure C-2 Photo copy of untraceable report dated 21.4.2012, Annexure C-3 Photo copy of claim intimation form and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                    On the other hand, counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ajay Sarin, Assistnat Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Ambala Cantt. as Annexure RX and documents such as Annexure R-1 Photo copy of letter dated 12.9.2012, Annexure R-2 Photo copy of letter dated 30.10.2012 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully.  Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite party reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     It is admitted fact that the complainant was registered owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02U-9512 and it was insured with the OP vide policy bearing No.1101013110P001144402 valid from 9.10.2010 to 8.10.2011 for Rs. 30,000/- which was stolen by some unknown person on 1.10.2011 within the insured period. It is also admitted that regarding theft of Motor Cycle an FIR No. 496 dated 4.10.2011 was lodged with the police of P.S. Yamuna Nagar.  Learned counsel for the OP has argued that OP issued a letter dated 12.9.2012 in which complainant was asked to submit untraceable report issued from the court and sent another letter dated 30.10.2012 to submit the transferred registration certificate in the name of United India Insurance Company Ltd. of the Motor Cycle in question and despite these letters the complainant has not submitted these documents. Hence the claim of the complainant could not be settled.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the complainant argued that original registration certificate of the motorcycle in question was also stolen with the motorcycle as the said registration certificate was in the box of motorcycle. It has been further argued by the counsel for the complainant that he has already submitted untraceable report issued by court on 21.4.2012 which it is evident from the second letter dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure R-2) issued by the OP as in this letter only transferred Registration Certificate has been demanded by the OP. Meaning thereby that all other documents earlier sought were either already received or were not required. Learned counsel for the complainant has further stated that as the claim of the complainant was found genuine by the investigator, hence, OP has not filed report of investigator due to malafidly  intention and even no insurance policy with its terms and conditions has been filed before this Forum.

 9.                    The only contention of the OP is that the complainant has not submitted the registration certificate transferred in the name of United India Insurance Company Ltd. hence, claim of the complainant has not been settled but this contention of the opposite party has no force to our mind. Because, firstly when the original registration certificate of the motorcycle in question had already been stolen with the motorcycle then how the complainant can get transfer the registration certificate in the name of OP i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and secondly, when the OP totally failed to settle the genuine claim of the complainant and sent the information regarding this to the complainant. Without approved the claim of complainant how the OP can demand transfer of registration certificate of his motorcycle in its name i.e. OP. Therefore, to our mind, there is nothing material for bent of which, genuine claim of the complainant, either cannot be settled or can be repudiated, therefore, it is a very clear that non settling the genuine claim of the complainant is totally unjustified. It is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such there is a great deficiency in service on the part of OP for withholding the genuine claim of the complainant without any cogent reason.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant as insured amount of motorcycle in question within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OP will liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and further to pay a sum of Rs. 2200/- as litigation expenses subject to submit the letter of subrogation, letter of indemnify on non judicial stamp paper before receiving the aforesaid awarded amount. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

2.7.2015.

                                                                                          ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER