BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.314 of 2014
Date of Instt. 11.09.2014
Date of Decision :17.03.2015
Joginder Singh aged about 65 years son of Narain Singh R/o 158, Subhash Nagar, Phagwara at present residing in village Mandiali, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd, Divisional Office No.2, Syal House, Lajpal Nagar Market, Jalandhar through its Manager/Divisional Manager.
.........Opposite party
Complaint under section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Sandeep Singh Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.K.L.Dua Adv., counsel for opposite party.
Order
Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant purchased one three-wheeler mark Piaggio Ape Extra having registered No.PB-09Q-1987 bearing chasis No.029027 and engine No.2061506 in the year 2011 and thereafter the same was got insured with the opposite party. The said insurance was from 11.1.2012 to 10.1.2013. On 17.6.2012 the above said vehicle of the complainant was parked outside Parhar Hospital, Guru Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara. When the complainant came out of the hospital, he saw that his auto was missing from the place where the complainant had parked it and the same had been stolen. The complainant immediately lodged a complaint bearing No.461-Zonal dated 17.6.2012 with PS City, Phagwara. On 2.6.2012 one FIR No.70 was got registered under section 379 of IPC at the instance of one Amarjit Kaur D/o Gurmej Singh R/o Khaordi, P.S. Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur in respect of her stolen scooter Honda Activa. In the same FIR reference of theft of the three-wheeler of the complainant was also made. Alongwith the aforesaid FIR No.70 dated 20.6.2012 investigation in respect of complaint lodged by the complainant was also done by the police. During the course of investigation one Mukesh @ Bania son of Ram Bhaj R/o Railway Road, District Ludhiana was arrested by the police and during the investigation he admitted to have stolen and auto/three-wheeler of the complainant alongwith Kulwinder Singh son of Nirmal Singh R/o Sahnewal District Ludhiana, one Naseeb Mohammad son of Sadeek Mohammad R/o Focal Point, Gobind Garh, PS Sahnewal District Ludhiana, Sonu son of Monu R/o Court Pannu, PS Rajpal District Kathua, Jammu and one another from outside of Parhar Hospital, Phagwara. Said Mukesh also told that the auto of the complainant was with Naseeb Mohammad and Sonu who have been declared as proclaimed offenders by the court of SDJM, Phagwara in the aforesaid case. In the meantime the complainant approached the opposite party and duly lodged his claim with the opposite parties with regard to the three-wheeler in question but the opposite party asked the complainant to submit not traceable report from the police authorities, so that the claim of the complainant can be processed. Accordingly the complainant vide his letter dated 28.02.2013 called upon the police authorities to issue untraced report/certificate to the complainant so that the complainant can submit the same to the insurance officials as demanded by them. The police authorities vide their report dated 21.3.2013 intimated that untraced/adampata report can not be given in the aforesaid case as during investigation it has come on record that the auto/three-wheeler in question was stolen by Mukesh @ Bania in connivance with aforesaid Kulwinder Singh, Naseeb Mohammad and Sonu from outside Parhar Hospital, Phagwara and the said auto/three-wheeler is in possession of Naseeb Mohammad and Sonu who have already declared as PO by the court of SDJM, Phagwara. Challan against the accused Mukesh has already been presented in the court. In these circumstances untraced report as demanded by the complainant can not be given. The complainant duly submitted the reply given by the police officials to the office of opposite party and asked them to settle the claim of the complainant but the opposite party kept on dilly delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and did not settle the claim of the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to finalize his claim with regard to the theft of three-wheeler in question and to pay him claim amount alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the present complaint is premature. The claim of the complainant has not yet been rejected by the opposite parties. No cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint. The complainant has not yet furnished the required documents as submitted by the complainant himself. The complainant has not yet produced the untraced report issued by the police. So the claim of the complainant can not be considered without the said report as per law of the land. As per the contention of the complainant, if the vehicle is with Naseeb Mohammad son of Sadeek Mohammad R/o Focal Point Gobindgarh, PS Sahnewal, District Ludhiana and with Sonu son of Monu R/o Court Pannu, PS Rajpal District Kathua, Jammu, so the same is to be recovered by the police. It denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1 and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully gone through the record and heard learned counsels for the parties.
6. The facts involved in the present complaint are not much disputed. It is not disputed that the insured three-wheeler of the complainant was stolen on 17.6.2012 and complainant reported the matter to the police and investigation of his case was conducted alongwith one case registered vide FIR No.70 dated 20.6.2012 under section 379 of IPC. The complainant lodged claim with the opposite party insurance company but the opposite party insurance company has not decided his claim so far. In the written reply, the opposite party has pleaded that complainant has not yet produced untraced report issued by the police, so the claim can not be considered without said report. This ground for not deciding the claim of the complainant by opposite party insurance company is not legally tenable. Firstly untraced report is not a condition precedent for deciding the insurance claim. Moreover, in this case untraced could not be issued as police has arrested one culprit. The complainant applied for untraced report to the Superintendent of Police, District Phagwara vide application Ex.C2 and the police vide Ex.C5 intimated him that four accused have committed the theft and out of four accused one Mukesh and Kulwinder Singh have been arrested who have disclosed that they committed theft alongwith Naseeb Mohammad and one Sonu and three-wheeler is with said Naseeb Mohammad and Sonu who have been declared as proclaimed offenders by the court of SDJM, Phagwara and the challan has been prepared and as such untraced report can not be issued. So in this case untraced report can not be issued by the police. The opposite party insurance company has not decided the claim of the complainant for more than 2- 2-1/2 years without any valid justification and it constitute deficiency in service on its part. However, we feel that opposite party insurance company should be given an opportunity to decide the claim of the complainant one way or another.
7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is disposed off with the directions to the opposite party insurance company to decide the claim of the complainant one way or another on the basis of documents already submitted by the complainant and further on the basis of documents produced by him during trial of the present complaint within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order positively failing which it shall be presumed that opposite party insurance company has accepted the claim of the complainant in toto. However, the complainant is awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation as opposite party insurance company failed to decide his claim till date without any proper justification. The complainant is also awarded Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
17.03.2015 Member Member President