Gurdeep Singh son of Sh. Dapinder Singh, resident of Talwandi Gate, Raikot, Ludhiana.
1. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Division XV, Rabindra Sarani, Pooddar Court, Gate No.4, 6th Floor, Kolkata-700 001, through its Divisional Manager.
2. The National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office No.1, Dhuri Railway Lines, Attam Park, Ludhiana.
3. M/s Magma Leasing Ltd. Savitri Complex, G.T. Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana through its Manager.
4. M/s Magma Leasing Limited, SCO 317-318, 1st Floor, Sector 34-B, Chandigarh through its Manager.
5. M/s Magma Leasing Limited, Moga through its Manager.
O R D E R
T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:
1. After obtaining finance from opposite parties no.3 to 5, complainant purchased a second hand truck bearing registration no. PB-05-G-9943 from Sh. Balbir Singh. He got the truck insured from opposite parties no.1 & 2 vide policy no.150100/31/00/6300000959, valid from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007. The truck was stolen on 14.2.2007, qua which lodged FIR no.28 dated 14.2.2007 in P.S. Raikot but the police failed to trace the same.
Opposite parties no.1 & 2 were approached time and again to settle his insurance claim, but they failed to make payment to the complainant or his financer opposite parties no.3 to 5. Consequently, in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, sought direction for deficiency in service by opposite parties no.1 & 2 to pay him insurance claim of Rs.5,00,000/- for which the vehicle was insured and settle his claim.
2. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 admitted obtaining insurance of the truck by the complainant and lodging the insurance claim after theft. But claimed that there is no deficiency in service on their part. As, on receipt of the claim same was forwarded to opposite parties no.3 to 5 for processing the same and engaging surveyor to look into the matter. Matter remained pending with opposite parties no.3 to 5 who were in communication with the complainant. Complainant failed to furnish the documents required to process the claim, so, the claim could not be processed and settled. Qua it, letter dated 23.9.2008 for supplying documents was written to the complainant and on their application the Fora vide order dated 22.10.2008 directed the complainant to supply the documents but he failed to supply the same. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
3. Opposite parties no.3 to 5 by way of separate reply claimed that complainant had been plying the vehicle for commercial purpose, so, not entitled to file the complaint. He has no locus standi to institute the complaint and is estopped by his act and conduct. Releasing loan for purchase of the truck to the complainant is conceded and that he was bound by loan agreement.
4. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.
6. It is admitted that claim so lodged by the complainant with the opposite parties no.1 & 2 has not been settled. For non settling, defence of OP-Insurance Company is non compliance of their letter dated 23.9.2008 (Ex.R.2). Under that letter, opposite parties no.1 & 2 required complainant to furnish the following documents:
1) Original FIR and Police Final Report
2) Claim Form duly filled up by you.
3) Intimation letter to RTO/DTO.
4) Original Registration Book, Fitness Certificate and Tax Token.
5) NCRB Report.
6) 2 Nos. of Ignition Key
7) Letter of Subrogation.
8) Form No.29, 30, 35 from the R.T.O./D.T.O. (duly Filled)
7. Subsequently during trial, an application was moved by the opposite parties no.1 & 2 directing the complainant to supply all those documents. Fora vide order dated 22.10.2008 required the complainant to supply the documents as mentioned in the application of the opposite parties no.1 & 2 but he failed to do the needful.
8. At the time of arguments, it was pointed on behalf of opposite parties no.1 & 2 that once documents sought under letter Ex.R.2 are made available, they will settle the claim.
9. In view of such aspects, we allow this complaint and consequently direct complainant to make available the documents to opposite parties no.1 & 2 as mentioned in letter Ex.R.2. Whenever such documents are made available, opposite parties no.1 & 2 shall acknowledge the same in writing by giving receipt to the complainant. Then the opposite parties no.1 & 2 shall decide the claim of the complainant within 45 days of the receipt of such papers from the complainant. In peculiar circumstances, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.