Haryana

Karnal

67/2014

Raghubir Singh S/o Ram Dhari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijle Vitran Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Des Raj Goyal

10 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.67 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt.:14.03.2014

                                                               Date of decision 10.4.2017

 

Raghubir Singh son of Ram Dhari resident of House no.32, Gali no.1 Shiv Colony Kaithal Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1.The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 6^th floor, Nrupthunga Road, Hudson Circle, Banglore-560001.

2. The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. G.T. Road Karnal.

3. The Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Sector-12 Market, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                             ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

                   Ms. Veena Rani……..Member

 

Present:-      Shri Sanjay Goel Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Narinder Chaudhary Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.

                     Shri Parveen Mann Advocate for opposite party no.3.

                 

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got insured his vehicle bearing registration no.HR-45A-3620 with opposite parties no.1 and 2 through opposite party no.3, vide policy no.07050031110110008421, valid from 12.12.2012 to 11.12.2012 and the insured value of the vehicle was Rs.606752/- The said vehicle was stolen and First Information Report no.803 dated 7.11.2012 was registered in Police Station Sadar Karnal, regarding the said theft. The opposite parties were informed about the theft. As per direction given by the opposite parties, he completed all the formalities for getting the claim. However, he received letter dated 22.1.2014 from the opposite party no.1 demanding documents mentioned at serial nos.1,3,4,6 to 10,12 to 19 in the said letter. He had already supplied the said documents through courier on 9.1.2014. Thereafter, he visited the office of opposite party no.2 a number of times for payment his claim, but the opposite parties postponed the matter one pretext or the other. Ultimately, he got served a registered legal notice dated 21.2.2014, but the same also did not yield any result. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, due to which he suffered mental pain and agony apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed joint written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct; that no intimation regarding theft was furnished by the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant did not furnish the reason for late submission of intimation of the claim to the opposite parties which was breach of the policy condition. Moreover, the opposite parties, vide letters dated 28.8.2013, 6.11.2013 and 6.1.2014 requested the complainant to complete formalities and submit the required documents, but he even failed to reply to the final reminder/letter dated 22.1.2014. In the absence of non-compliance on the part of the complainant, the opposite parties had no other option but to close the claim file. In this way, there was neither any unfair trade practice nor deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                The opposite party no.3 filed separate written statement. It has been averred that the opposite party no.3 is only the financer of the vehicle and committed no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. The complainant had obtained loan of Rs.7,80,000/- from opposite party no.3 and Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 12.12.2008 was executed. The complainant was liable to repay the loan irrespective of the fact whether his vehicle remained operational or not. The insurance company is liable to pay the loan amount under the Indian Motor Tariff Endorsement no.7 in the insurance policy. An amount of Rs.5,05,160/- is due and payable by the complainant towards the loan as on 23.4.2014.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C29 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of S.S. Vasudeva Ex.OP1&2/1 has only been been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant got insured his vehicle bearing registration no.HR-45A-3620 with opposite parties no.1 and 2 for the period of 12.12.2011 to 11.12.2012. He had obtained financial assistance from opposite party no.3 for purchasing the said vehicle. The vehicle was stolen and First Information Report no.803 dated 7.11.2012 was registered in Police Station, Karnal regarding the said theft. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 made the claim of the complainant as “No Claim” as the complainant did not submit the required documents as mentioned in the letters dated 28.8.2013, 6.11.2013, 6.1.2014 and 22.1.2014 sent to the complainant.

8.                It has further been alleged by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 that the complainant did not furnish the reason for late submission or intimation of the claim to the opposite parties, which was breach of policy condition. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties have not specifically pleaded as to on which date the intimation regarding theft was given by the complainant and on which date the claim was submitted by him. Thus, the plea raised by opposite parties no.1 and 2 is quite vague. Even otherwise, in view of the circular dated 22.9.2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority and the proposition of law laid down in Shriram General insurance Company limited Versus Rajesh Kumar 2014(2) CLT 290 and Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Manoj 2014(3) CLT 447 as well as order of Hon’ble National Commission in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Versus Kulwant Singh IV (2014) CPJ 62 (NC)  the insurance company cannot repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant merely on the ground of late intimation of theft and late submission of the claim.

11               Now, next question which arises for consideration is whether the complainant had submitted the required documents to the opposite parties, for processing the claim or not. The copy of the letter dated 22.1.2014  Ex.C4  shows that the complainant was asked to furnish the documents mentioned therein, but the complainant has not produced any receipt on record regarding submitting the documents with the insurance company. Even, no copy of any letter has been produced, which may indicate that he has complied with the said letter of the opposite parties.

12.              From the aforediscussed evidence, it is clear that the complainant had submitted some documents to the opposite parties, but some documents which were necessary for processing the claim, were not submitted.  The opposite parties had not repudiated the claim of the complainant, rather his claim was closed for not submitting the documents necessary for processing the claim. The complainant should submit these necessary documents to the opposite parties so that his claim may be processed.

13.              In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complaint is premature, therefore, the same is dismissed as such. However, the complainant is directed to submit the required documents mentioned in the letter dated 22.1.2014  Ex.C14 with the opposite parties within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order and we further direct that the opposite parties would decide the claim of the complainant within 30 days of submission of the documents by him. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:10.4.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)    (Veena Rani)

                               Member               Member