Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/635

Girish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Dalip K.Saggi

30 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

       C.C. No: 635 of 11.09.2014

                                                                      Date of Decision:29.01.2015

Sh.Girish Kumar Mittal, s/o Sh.Shiv Kumar Mittal, resident of H.No.777, Aggar Nagar Part-B, Ludhiana. 

……Complainant

                                                    Versus          

1.M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, through its General Manager/Director/Auth.Sign.Gulmour Hotel, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

2.M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director/Director/Auth.Sign.Regd.&Head Office at 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014.

                                                                             ……...Opposite Parties

        Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

         

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President.                 

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.             

                 

Present:       Sh.Dalip K.Saggi, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.D.R.Rampal, Adv. for Ops.

ORDER

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be described as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Girish Kumar Mittal(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, through its General Manager/Director/Auth.Sign.Gulmour Hotel, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana and others (herein-after in short to be described as ‘Ops’)- directing them to pay Rs.1,34,000/- to the complainant on account of loss of the vehicle in theft and compensation on account of mental tension for non-supply of copy of repudiation of claim and non-settlement of the claim lodged by the complainant with the Ops and besides other benefits to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of Hero Honda Passion Motor Cycle bearing registration No.PB-10-D-6405, Make 2010 which was insured by the complainant with Ops vide policy NO.2009003112P300399494 for a sum of Rs.34,000/- for the coverage period from 7.9.2012 to 6.9.2013. Unfortunately, on 23.2.2013, some unidentified persons had stolen the abovesaid motor cycle from Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana and the police of Basti Jodhewal had got registered a case against some unidentified persons vide FIR No.53 dated 23.2.2013. The complainant had applied for the claim for the said vehicle with the Ops for the loss suffered by him due to theft of the said vehicle and accordingly, the Ops deputed a surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the complainant qua the said vehicle and handed over copy of FIR and other documents pertaining to the claim, but thereafter, no heed was paid by the Ops to settle the claim. Thereafter, the complainant visited the surveyor as well as the OP1 for a number of times for the settlement of claim but with no result and it has been learnt from the office of OP1 that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated but till date, the complainant did not receive any letter for repudiation of claim from the Ops. The complainant served a legal notice through his counsel vide letter dated 11.7.2014 upon the Ops but despite having receipt of the said notice, Ops failed to initiate the effective steps for settlement of the claim lodged by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant wrote a letter dated 13.8.2014 to the OP1 for supply of copy of repudiation of the claim of the complainant which was duly received by the OP1 but till date, the OP1 neither gave reply to that letter nor any copy was supplied by the Ops. Such act and conduct of Ops is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs were duly served and appeared through their counsel Sh.D.R.Rampal, Advocate and filed their written reply, in which, they took up certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the same is false and frivolous one; the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts; the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing this complaint and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that the motor cycle bearing No.PB-10-D-6405 was not insured by the answering Ops. Further, it is submitted that Motor cycle bearing registration No.PB-10-DD-6405 was got insured by the complainant from the answering OP1 for the period from 7.9.2012 to 6.9.2013. The parties are governed by terms and conditions of the said insurance policy. The complainant was required to take reasonable steps to safeguard the said motor cycle from the loss. The complainant has failed to take reasonable care to save the vehicle from alleged loss. The complainant gave intimation dated 5.2.2013 to answering Ops with regard to alleged theft of motor cycle NO.PB-10-DD-6405 on 2.2.2013 and answering Ops had specifically remarked on the copy of the complainant that FIR is required to proceed further. Sh.M.L.Mehla was deputed as investigator to investigate the alleged theft. The said investigator approached the complainant and requested him to supply the required documents and information for investigation purpose but the complainant did not supply those documents and information to the investigator. Sh.M.L.Mahla, Investigator gave notice dated 9.3.2013 calling upon the complainant to provide the name and address of the person who had taken the motor cycle to the spot where it was stolen, whether the said person was holding a driving license, copy of FIR, copy of registration certificate and keys of stolen motor cycle. The copy of the said notice/letter was also given to the answering Ops by the said investigator. The answering Ops regional office(Hub) issued notice dated 11.3.2013 to the complainant calling upon him to provide the documents to the investigator as per his letter/notice dated 9.3.2013 and copy was also sent to the answering OP1 for fellow up action. The investigator again issued reminder information which was requested vide notice dated 9.3.2013. The complainant did not supply the required information and documents. The investigator however concluded the investigation in this case and from inquiries conducted by the said investigator, he found that motor cycle bearing NO.PB-10-DD-6405 alleged to be stolen was not locked at the time of incident of theft as was told to him by father of the complainant and he submitted his investigation report dated 27.4.2013. The answering Ops also gave intimation to OP1 to call upon the complainant to co-operate with the investigator and to submit the required documents. The complainant was time and again called upon to submit the required documents for settlement of his claim. On receipt of investigation report dated 27.4.2013 and waiting for the complainant to provide required documents and information, the answering Ops scrutinized the claim of the complainant and found that the complainant has failed to provide required documents and motor cycle was also not locked at the time of alleged theft which is an act of negligence and not covered under the policy and competent authority of the answering Ops, treated the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’ and ‘No Claim’ letter dated 18.6.2013 was duly posted to the complainant. Due services have been rendered by the answering Ops and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Ops. At the end, denying all other allegations of the complaint, answering OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint and Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11.

5.                On the other hand, in order to rebut the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the OPs adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.R.R.Sethi, its Manager, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of written reply filed by OPs and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the Op tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RB of Sh.M.L.Mahla, Investigator who was deputed by the Ops in order to conduct the investigation qua the theft of motor cycle bearing registration NO.PB-10-DD-6405, in which, he has proved his report dated 27.4.2013 Ex.RR6, copy of notice dated 9.3.2012 Ex.R2, reminder dated 30.3.2013 Ex.R5 alongwith his signatures on the investigation repoprt as Ex.R2 and Ex.R5. Further, learned counsel for the OP has proved on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on the file very carefully.

7.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question which was insured with the OPs for the period from 7.9.2012 to 6.9.2013 vide policy No.2009003112P300399494 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.34,000/- on payment of premium. It is further a proved fact that on 23.2.2012, motor cycle of the complainant was stolen by someone and FIR NO.53 dated 23.2.2013 Ex.C2 was lodged with the Police Station Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana and due intimation was given to the OPs by the complainant and the claim was lodged which was registered and processed by the Ops. However, the claim file of the complainant closed as ‘No Claim’ by the Ops vide letter dated 18.6.2013 Ex.R8.

8.                Perusal of the repudiation letter dated 18.6.2013 Ex.R8 reveals that claim file of the complainant was closed as ‘No Claim’ on the grounds that despite sending letter dated 30.3.2013 for compliance of the requirement immediately and on receipt of investigation report, it had been established that the complainant has not submitted a single documents like attested copy of FIR, duly completed Claim Form, copy of Driving license, Rc etc. and which shows that the complainant is not interested in the claim and secondly, since the bike was not locked at the time it was stolen which was an act of negligence, being not covered under the policy. As the insured was expected to take all reasonable care all the times during the period of the policy as if he would have taken care otherwise. Keeping in view the above facts, the claim file was closed as ‘No Claim’. So, it is apparently clear that claim of the complainant is still not repudiated and the same was only closed as ‘No Claim’.

9.                So, it appears from the evidence of the parties that it will be in the fitness of things that if the present complaint is partly allowed and necessary directions are given to the complainant to submit the requisite documents as demanded by the Ops and their surveyor for settling his claim, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and thereafter, necessary directions are given to Ops to settle and pay the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and in accordance with law.  

10.              Hence, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed with the directions to the complainant to submit the requisite documents as demanded by the Ops and their surveyor within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in order to settle his claim and thereafter, Ops are directed to settle and pay the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and in accordance with law within 45 days from the date of receipt of aforesaid documents from the complainant, failing which, Ops are liable to pay interest @9% p.a. from the date of lodging of claim till its realization. However, Ops shall be at liberty to settle the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis, if it is found that there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Further, Ops are burdened with Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no order as to compensation is passed. Order qua litigation costs be also complied within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

                                 Member                     President.  

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:29.01.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.