Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/45

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ranbir Vashishta, Adv

23 Sep 2015

ORDER

ORDER                                 

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

          Sh. Jarnail Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’) praying for issuance of the following directions to it:-

1. To pay Rs.36,000/- to him along with 18 % interest per  annum from     the date of theft of the motorcycle till the realization of the amount.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service and mental as well as physical harassment caused to him 

 

3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Forum may deems fit, in the interest of justice.

 

 

2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 30.03.2011, he had purchased a Bajaj Platina bearing registration No.PB-12-Q-3149 and got it insured with the OP vide package policy No.112181/31/12/01/00001197 for the period from 07.05.2012 to 06.05.2013. The insured declared value of the same was Rs.36,000/- and a premium of Rs.891/- was paid by him. On 29.08.2012 at about 10.00 p.m after parking his motor cycle in front of The Civil Hospital, Morinda, he went inside the Hospital, to meet his brother, but when he came out after some time, then he found that his motor cycle was not there. He tried his best, but could not trace the same. Ultimately, he got registered a DDR No.136 dated 28.08.2012 and DDR No.5 dated 16.09.2012 under section 379 of IPC in the City Police Station, Morinda.   Despite the best efforts by the police, the same could not be traced out. As the motor cycle in question was insured with the O.P., he requested it to pass his claim of insured amount of Rs.36,000/-, but O.P refused to pass his claim by saying his claim will be passed after submission of un-traced report. Thereafter, from time to time, he was finding out from the police, whether his motor cycle has been traced out or not. Ultimately, the police informed him that his motor cycle could not be traced out despite best efforts and it had submitted the untraced report regarding DDRs No.136 dated 28.08.2012  and 5 dated 16.09.2012 of the motor cycle in question before the court of ACJM, Rupnagar, which was duly accepted by the Hon’ble Shri K.S.Sullar, PCS, ACJM, Rupnagar on 03.05.2013. The complainant had requested the OP to pass his claim as the untraced report has been accepted by the Court. Thereafter, one Devinder Sharma Investigator and Loss Assessor had asked him to submit some documents and his statement duly attested by the Notary Public about the circumstances leading to theft of motor cycle. He, as per demand had submitted his duly sworn affidavit consisting the detailed facts about the theft of his motor cycle to the O.P. along with all the relevant documents demanded by it with the hope that the O.P. will pass his claim. But the O.P. vide letter dated  28.01.2014 repudiated his claim on the ground that as per their investigator report, claim is not payable hence claim is closed as no claim.  Since the O.P. has wrongly repudiated his claim. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.  On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written version in the shape of affidavit of Smt. Hemali Batra, Deputy Manager of United India Insurance Company, opposed the said complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint against the O.P.; that the complaint is not maintainable; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint against the O.P. On merits, it is stated that as per the policy condition, if the motor cycle of the complainant was stolen then he should have reported the matter to the police as well as to the Insurance Company immediately and should have lodged the FIR for theft in the concerned Police Station. Where as, no FIR has been lodged till date by the complainant and the DDR as alleged has been lodged after more than 20 days from the date of occurrence, moreover the said DDR is clubbed with another case which is wrong and illegal. No efforts have been made by the police to trace the motor cycle in question as there is no FIR regarding the same. There was delay in intimation to the O.P. as the complainant had informed the O.P. about the alleged theft of the vehicle on 20.09.2012 i.e. after 20 days of alleged theft of the vehicle, where as it was duty of the insured/complainant to inform regarding the theft to the police and to the insurance company immediately after the alleged occurrence. It is further stated that no FIR has been lodged regarding the theft of motor cycle in question and the question of untraceable report in the absence of FIR regarding theft did not arise at all. The alleged DDR’s are wrong and illegal. The DDR No.136 as alleged is dated 28.08.2012, whereas the alleged theft took place on 29/30.08.2012, how the DDR in advance can be lodged and the DDR No.5 dated 16.09.2012 was got manipulated after a lapse of 17/18 days. Just to avoid the investigation regarding the theft of motor cycle in question, the insured/complainant has lodged DDR only instead of lodging FIR and in case of FIR complete investigation must have been done by the police to trace the vehicle. Moreover, the police had not submitted any data of the stolen vehicle with the NCRB in the absence of the FIR, it is not sure that whether the vehicle is traced any wherein India. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made that the same be dismissed, qua the answering O.P. with punitive & exemplary costs.
4. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex. C12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP  tendered photocopies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-5 and closed the evidence and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the O.P. and gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the motorcycle of the complainant bearing registration No. PB-12-Q-3149, which was duly insured with the O.P. for the period from 7.5.2012 to 6.5.2013, got stolen on 29.8.2012. He tried his best to trace it, but he could not trace the same and lodged DDR No. 136 dated 28.8.2012 & DDR No. 5 dated 16.9.2012 with the police station concerned. From the copy of the order dated 03.05.2013 Ex.C8. it is evident that the Hon’ble Court of ACJM has accepted the untraced report furnished by the police. He also informed the O.P about the theft and requested it to indemnify him for the loss occurred to him, but the O.P. has wrongly closed the case as ‘No Claim’ vide its letter dated 28.1.2014 on the ground that as per report of the investigator the claim is not payable, therefore, it is deficient in rendering service and it be directed to pay the IDV of the said motorcycle to the tune of Rs.36000/- alongwith interest, compensation & litigation expenses, as prayed for in the complaint.
7. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that the alleged DDR No.136 is dated 28.08.2012, whereas the alleged theft took place on 29/30.08.2012, then how the DDR in advance can be lodged. The other DDR No.5 dated 16.09.2012 was got registered by the complainant after lapse of 17/18 days from the date of theft of the said motor cycle. The complainant intimated the insurer on 20.09.2012 with a delay i.e. after 20 days from the date of alleged theft. Since, in the present case, it is proved on record that there was delay in intimating about the theft to the police and to the insurer by the the complainant. Therefore, the O.P. is not liable to indemnify the complainant for his own wrong. In the case of Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Mahender Jat., The Hon’ble National Commission by making reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Parvesh Chadha has held that as per terms and condition of the policy,  the insured/complainant was bound to give notice of theft in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of the theft as also to give immediate notice to the police and to cooperate with the company for securing the conviction of the offender. He further submitted that the complaint being devoid of merits be dismissed with cost.
8. Admittedly, the motorcycle in question was duly insured with the O.P. vide insurance policy, Ex. C4, for the period from 7.5.2012 to 6.5.2013. From the bare reading of Adampata report Ex.C7, it is evident that the DDR No.136 dated 28.08.2012 Under section 379 of IPC was recorded by the police on the statement of Sh. Satnam Singh son of Sh. Mohinder Singh is only for the vehicle (motor cycle) No.PB-10BT-0811 said to had been stolen on 21.08.2012. This fact has also been find mentioned in the report of the investigator and loss assessor Ex.OP-3. Even otherwise, as per the version of the complainant, the theft of the motor cycle in question had taken place on 29.08.2012, then the lodging of the DDR No.136 qua the said theft on 28.8.2012 i.e. one day prior to the alleged theft is not believable. Moreover, from the perusal of DDR placed on record by the complainant Ex. C10, it is evident the DDR No. 5 was lodged on 16.9.2012 i.e. after lapse of a period of 20 days from the date of the alleged theft. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned counsel for the O.P. produced the copy of the policy along with terms and conditions before the Bench and pleaded that as per condition No.1 of the terms and conditions, it was incumbent upon the insured/complainant to inform the insurance company and police immediately. Since the terms and conditions are very essential for just adjudication of the case, therefore, the same are taken on record and marked as “A”. In condition No.1 of the terms and conditions of the policy, it is clearly mentioned that the notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon occurrence of any incidence/theft, but from the record it is borne out that the complainant had informed the insurance company after 20 days from the date of theft of the vehicle. Even otherwise, Appellate Fora in catena of judgments have already held that in theft cases the insured shall inform the insurance company and the police at the most within 24 hours of the occurrence of the theft. In the present case, there was a delay on the part of the complainant regarding giving intimation about the theft to the police as well as to the insurer, as a result thereof, the police and the insurer were deprived of taking immediate action of tracing the same, as such, there was gross negligence on the part of the complainant. In our view that the O.P.  has committed no ambiguity in repudiating the claim.

 

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit    in the complaint filed by the complainant, consequently we dismissed the same without any order as to cost.  

              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                           (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 23.09.2015                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.