Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/482/2016

Jasvir Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Chandan Sharma Adv.

08 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	482/2016
Date of Institution	:	12.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	08/06/2017

 

                                       

                                               

Jasvir Kaur d/o Sh.Harbans Lal r/o H.No.764-B, Sector 44-A, Canara Apartments, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Durga Bhawani Temple, GT Karnal Road, Near Bus Stand, Karnal-132001 through its Deputy Manager.

 

2.     United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Manager.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                 Sh.G.D.Gupta, Adv. for the OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the complainant got her Honda Aviator Scooter bearing registration No.CH-01-AH-5255 insured with the OPs for sum insured of Rs.27000/- vide Insurance Policy (Annexure C-2). The said vehicle was stolen on 18.10.2015 from Sector 22-D, Market, Chandigarh regarding which the FIR No.415 dated 20.10.20015 under Section 379 IPC (Annexure C-3) was lodged with the concerned Police Station.   The OPs were also informed regarding the theft of the vehicle vide letter dated 20.10.2015 (Annexure C-4). It has further been averred that she submitted all the requisite documents with the OPs for releasing the claim. However, the OPs sent a letter dated 12.05.2016 requiring her to comply with the formalities mentioned therein. According to the complainant she complied with all the formalities as mentioned in the said letter dated 12.05.2016 vide her letter dated 06.06.2016. However, OP No.1 refused to accept the original RC of the scooter and asked her to get the said RC transferred in the name of the OPs despite the fact that it was the duty of the transferee to apply for the transfer of the RC. It has further been averred that she was always ready to assist the OPs in getting the RC transferred but despite this the OPs did not settle the claim.  Finally she got served a legal notice dated 21.6.2016 upon the OPs but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written statement, the factual matrix of the case has not been denied by the OPs.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant was so careless and negligent in handling the subject matter of insurance that she even did not apply for transfer of the RC in the name of the OP who is ready to settle the claim immediately the RC is transferred in its favour.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant has not taken reasonable care and caution for the safety of the scooter and parked the vehicle at un-authorized and unprotected place thus making easy for the thieves to steel the vehicle. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         We have heard the complainant in person, the learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         It is apt to mention here that during the course of arguments i.e. 23.05.2017, the Counsel for the OPs handed over a cheque dated 15.05.2017 in the sum of Rs.26,900/- drawn on HDFC Bank,  Karnal Haryana  to the complainant in lieu of her claim and the said cheque has been accepted by the complainant. However, she has prayed for litigation expenses/costs.
5.         The genuine grievance of the complainant has been redressed by the OPs only after filing of the instant complaint before this Forum and that too at fag end of the arguments and, therefore, we are of the considered that she is required to be adequately compensated for the unwarranted litigation. Had the OPs settled the genuine claim of the complainant prior to filing of the complaint or within the reasonable period after receipt of the claim papers then the position certainly would have been different but they did not do so on one pretext or the other.  Keeping in view overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is awarded a sum of Rs.5,500/- towards litigation expenses.  
6.         For the reasons recoded above, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs to pay Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  This order be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
7.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.      

Announced

08/06/2017 

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER