BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Bal Krishan Malik, House No.1207, Sec 8-C, UT, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      United India Insurance Company Ltd., D.O.II, SCO 177-178, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

2.      Sr. Supdt. Of Police, U.T, Chandigarh.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL  MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

Sh. G.D. Gupta, Adv. for OP-1.

Mrs. Pratima Arora, Govt. Pleader for OP-2.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant got his Maruti Zen car bearing registration No.CH03-S-2088 comprehensively insured with OP-1 for the period 27.4.2007 to 26.4.2008.  On 5.12.2007 the car was stolen while being parked in front of SCF No.39, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh regarding which FIR No.246 dated 5.12.2007 was lodged.  The claim was lodged with OP-1 who deputed their surveyor/investigator and all documents, except untraceable police report, were submitted to the insurers but still the OP illegally and arbitrarily closed the claim file.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OP-1 admitted the facts with regard to the insurance and theft of the car.  It has also been admitted that theft claim was reported upon which independent investigator was appointed to enquire into the fact of the alleged theft.  However, it has been submitted that the stolen vehicle was recovered by the police but the complainant refused to take delivery on the plea that modifications were made in the car.  It has been pleaded that once the car was recovered it has no liability whatsoever except for missing parts as per police inventory and damages to the car. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             In their written reply OP-2 also admitted the factual matrix.  It has been submitted that in pursuance to the disclosure statement made by Ghanshayam that he stole the car on 5.12.2007 and subsequently alongwith one Shashikant erased the chassis number and engine number of the car in question and sold the same to one Harbhajan Singh r/o #3251, Sector 21, Chandigarh, the car was recovered from the possession of Harbhajan Singh, aforesaid on 15.1.2008 and was sent to SFSL, Chandigarh for examination on 31.3.2008.  The CFSL vide their report dated 23.3.2009 clarified that the car in question was not the stolen car of the complainant and even after further investigation of the case the stolen car was not recovered. It has also been pleaded that now the investigating agency has procured the sanction of SP (O), UT, Chandigarh for filing the untraced report before the court which would be filed as early as possible.  Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the complainant in person, Counsel for OP-1 and Govt. Pleader for OP-2 and have also perused the record. 

6.             It is now an admitted case that the vehicle in question was insured with the OP-1 and was stolen on 5.12.2007.  It has also been proved by OP-2 that the said car has not been recovered and they are tendering the untraced report therein.  The contention of the Learned Counsel for the OP-1 is that infact the payment of compensation to the complainant was delayed due to the report of the OP-2 as a result of investigation, when they claimed that the stolen car has since been recovered.  Their contention was that the thief had erased the chassis number and engine number due to which the car was sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh (herein after referred as CFSL) for reporting about the actual chassis number and engine number of the recovered car and the said office delayed the report for about one year.  Annexure R-2/2 shows that the reference was made to CFSL, Chandigarh on 31.03.2008 but the report of the same was given by them on 23.03.2009, there was therefore no deficiency on the part of OP-1.

7.             The CFSL, Chandigarh has not been made as a party in the present complaint. The delay caused by the said laboratory cannot be attributed to OP-2 and OP-2 cannot be burdened to pay compensation to the complainant for the delay so caused not by them but by the third party.

8.             The investigation of a theft case is carried out by the Police.  The complainant has no control over the police and cannot even ask them to give the untraced report promptly. The Insurer has its own investigator, who has to report to them about the theft of the insured vehicle and the fact as to whether the same has been recovered or not and further whether the police is sending the untraced report or not. The compensation in such cases should therefore be paid by the insurer within a reasonable period without waiting for the untraced report of the Police.

9.             Since the vehicle in the present case has been stolen and has not been recovered so far, the OP-2 has already submitted an affidavit alongwith reply filed by it that they are filing the untraced report, it should itself be enough to conclude that the untraced report is being submitted in the case and therefore the complainant is entitled to compensation.  The present complaint therefore succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed.  The OP will inform the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of copy of the order as to what forms, affidavits or other documents are to be submitted by the complainant to them. It is made clear that the complainant cannot be asked to submit untraced report or to get the vehicle transferred in favour of OP-1 because it is to be done under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made there under by the transferee and not by the transferor.  The owner is only to submit the documents to the OP-1 and it is OP-1 who is to get the vehicle transferred in his favour. The complainant would thereafter submit the necessary forms and affidavits to the OP-1 alongwith indemnity bond for the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in their favour. The OP-1 shall on receipt of these documents make the payment of Rs.2,52,200/- to the complainant alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-  within 15 days from the receipt of the said documents. If the documents are not asked for or the payment of compensation is not made within the aforesaid period of 15 days as mentioned above after the receipt of documents from the complainant, OP-1 would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs.2,52,200/- since 5.03.2008 [three months after the date of theft] till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.  The complainant would however appear before the authorities and execute what ever documents are needed for the transfer of the vehicle thereafter.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.