Delhi

East Delhi

CC/394/2014

MOHAN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INS. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 394/14

 

Shri Mohan Kumar Karki

S/o Shri EIK Bahadur Karki

R/o B-56/2, Gali No. 8

Shashi Garden, Delhi – 110 092                                                         ….Complainant

Vs.

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Service Hub, Regional Office-II

Core-IV, 1^st Floor, Scope Minar

Laxmi Nagar, District Centre

Delhi – 110 092                                                                                  ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 01.05.2014

Judgment Reserved on:11.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 07.12.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Mohan Kumar Karki has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) for deficiency of services.

2.        The facts in brief are that Santro car, bearing no. DL-3CAL-1311, insured with respondent was stolen from E-69, Sector-39, Noida, UP on 23.05.2013 for which FIR No. 338/13 was got registered at police station of Sector-39, Noida, Distt. Gautambudh Nagar. 

            Complainant informed the respondent about the incident, who provided a claim no. 2215043113C05002000 and policy no. 2215043112P000955159 and file no. 6373 to the complainant.  Investigation was done by investigator Jitender and Harkrishan of the respondent.  On 25.10.2013, respondent sent a letter to the complainant to file final report under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. within seven days.  The said report was provided to the respondent on 16.12.2013.  The complainant also fulfilled all the documents regarding theft of the vehicle and its claim such as:

1. Information to MLO/DTO/RTO regional/distt. Transport Authority, Seikh Sarai, South Delhi, Delhi on 19.06.2013.
2.  Original final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. from the concerned court.
3. Complete set of original keys were also provided to the respondent by the complainant. 

The complainant used to contact the respondent for the claim but on one pretext or the other, his claim has not been cleared.  When on January’2014, the complainant contacted the respondent, he was shocked to know that his claim file was missing.  Since the claim of the complainant paid, the complainant sent a legal notice of dated 05.03.2014.  Since the claim of the complainant has not been paid, he has filed the present complaint requesting to direct the respondent to pay the full claim amount; Rs. 1,00,000/- compensation on account of mental pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.        In the written statement, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) has taken various objections such as the policy was in the name of Mohan Kumar Karki, IDV value was shown as Rs. 1,10,833/-.  The complainant suppressed the material facts in respect of FIR as the alleged theft was on 23.05.2013.  Key of the car, which was parked in front of the house, was left in the vehicle.  Complainant failed to surrender complete set of car keys.  Complainant was asked to file the required documents.  Due to non-compliance of furnishing the required documents, the respondent was constrained to close the claim.  Other facts have also been denied.  In nutshell, the defence, taken by the respondent has been that the complainant have not complied furnishing of the required documents. 

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

5.        In support of its claim, the complainant examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited copies of documents such as copy of mail, sent to respondent informing about the submission of untraced report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., which is exhibited as CW-1/A.  Another letter of dated 12.12.2013, informing the company of having him received the final report (CW-1/B), sending the final report through speed post (CW-1/C) and legal notice (CW-1/D).

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) have examined                     Shri Y.R. Kanojia, who has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited copy of policy (Ex.OP-A),  FIR (Ex.OP-B), letters sent by the insurance company for submitting the documents (Ex.OP-C), (Ex.OP-D), (Ex.OP-E), (Ex.OP-F), (Ex.OP-G) & (Ex.OP-H) and letter of information sent to the complainant closing the claim due to non-furnishing of documents (Ex.OP-I).

6.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  The first and foremost argument, which has been advanced on behalf of respondent has been that due to non-submission of documents and the key, the claim of the complainant have been closed. 

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that they have furnished all documents, which were required by the insurance company.  If a look is made to letter of dated 22.11.2013, which is exhibited OP-I, it is noticed that the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) have closed the claim due to non-furnishing of documents.  During the course of arguments, it has been argued on behalf of insurance company that he complainant have not given the key of the vehicle, which has been denied by the complainant.

            Counsel for the complainant has stated that they have given the key to the insurance company and there was no demand made at the time of filing the claim.  If a look is made to the check list of the claim, which is investigators’ letter (Ex.OP-C), under the head no. 10 “key of the vehicle and a photo tracing of the same”, this column has been left as it is. 

            From this, it can be said that keys of the vehicle were not demanded at the time of filing the claim.  The question of keys have arisen in the subsequent letters of the insurance company, which is of dated 03.09.2013 (OP-G) and 25.10.2013 (OP-H).  Since the keys have been demanded in these two letters, though, in the previous letters of the investigator dated 13.07.2013, 25.07.2013, 10.08.2013 which are Ex. OP-D, OP-E and OP-F, demand of keys have not been made.  Thus, the fact remains that the complainant have handed over the keys of the investigator.  When no demand in the earlier letters was made, the question of demanding original keys in the later letters does not arise.  Therefore, the insurance company could not have insisted for set of keys and have closed the claim of the complainant for non-supply of documents, though he has submitted most of the documents instead of waiting for completion of documents, the insurance company have closed the claim. 

            The insurance company should have given sufficient time to the complainant to handover the documents as were required.  Since, the complainant have submitted all the documents except set of keys, which have been demanded in the subsequent letters, which was not the demand in the earlier letters as explained.  We are of the opinion that the insurance company should re-open the claim of the complainant and award the sum as per policy.   

In view of the above, we direct the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) to re-open the claim of the complainant and ask the claim as per policy within a period of 2 months. 

            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