Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Then the complainant met Senior Police Inspector, PS-Khalapur and submitted an application on 23.4.2012 for registration of FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle in question. The intimation of theft was also given to the Financier-Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. as well as to the Insurance Company. The complainant also filed insurance claim before the Insurance Company on 18.7.2012 along with requisite documents including FIR and R.C. of the vehicle etc. In- spite of lapse of long time the Insurance Company did not decide the claim of the complainant and continued to raise objections. On 27.5.2013 the complainant received a letter from the opposite parties-Insurance Company to supply NCB from the previous insurer and asked for fulfilling seven more documents but no action was taken. The complainant had been complying with all the formalities as required by the Insurance Company. Ultimately on 21.11.2013 the complainant received another letter asking for reasons for registration of FIR after the delay of 2 months and the untraceable report having been signed by SSP/ACP. The complainant had already submitted a copy of the FIR and thereafter submitted the untraced report dated 10.4.2014. In-spite of all this, the opposite parties-Insurance Company rejected the claim. The complainant wrote many letters. Not only this, in-spite of theft of the truck of the complainant the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. started filing complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonouring of the cheques which they had taken as surety. Even arbitration proceedings were initiated and arbitration award was passed. Finally the opposite parties-Insurance Company rejected the claim, vide letter dated 27.2.2015 on the ground that untraceable report was not submitted. Hence feeling aggrieved the present complaint was filed by the complainant for issuance of the above mentioned directions to the opposite parties.

The complainant was experiencing difficulty in understanding the local language i.e. Marathi and had conveyed to the police in Punjabi language but they were not understanding properly. The complainant remained there for many days for getting the FIR registered but the same was not registered. However, an application was again submitted on 23.4.2012, which is placed on record as Ex.C-6, which was written by a local person in Marathi and the same was got signed from the complainant. A copy of the said application was given after signing by the official of the concerned Police Station, which bears the stamp/seal of the Police Inspector of Police Station-Khalapur and the date. It was further argued that the complainant had informed the police immediately on 12.4.2012 and had also submitted another application on 23.4.2012 Ex.C-6 but it was not within the power of the complainant to get the FIR registered. He could only give intimation of theft of the vehicle to the police. There is no mala fide intention on the part of the complainant that he will falsely claim for the vehicle which was a new one. In fact there is no delay on the part of the complainant in informing the police as well as the opposite parties and the financier. The delay is fully explained in view of the fact that the complainant remained in Khalapur area for tracing out the truck with the police but of no avail. It was also not in the control of the complainant to get the untraceable report from the concerned authority. The opposite parties have not got the claim investigated on their level. The complainant has no control over the police. Untraceable report can also be obtained by the opposite parties. It was lastly argued that the complainant had given legal notice for not deciding the insurance claim for three years, which is against the IRDA instructions as well as the general practice of deciding the claims by the Insurance Companies. The claim has been wrongly rejected, vide letter dated 27.2.2015, Ex.C-39, on the ground that the documents are not available and the complainant has not completed the formalities. This action of the opposite parties not only amounts to deficiency in service but also amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice on their part.

9. Another reason for rejecting the claim is non-submission of untraced report duly signed by the SSP/ACP of the concerned area. A copy of the Panchnama/Certificate dated 10.4.2014 regarding the theft of the vehicle issued by the Police Inspector of PS-Khalapur is annexed as Ex.C-17 in which it has been stated that untraced report had been submitted by the police of PS-Khalapur to the Hon'ble Magistrate First Class, Khalapur to grant summary under class "A". It is also mentioned that FIR had been registered and till that date the accused had not been found. This Certificate has been duly issued by the Police Inspector, PS-Khalapur. Meaning thereby that till 10.4.2014 the vehicle was not traced. This information was supplied to the opposite parties-Insurance Company. Thereafter letter Ex.C-21 was received from the opposite parties-Insurance Company to supply cause and reason of lodging late FIR on 9.7.2012 while the theft had taken place on 11.4.2012 and untraceable report from the concerned SSP/ACP. So far as both the documents are concerned, the complainant had already submitted all the documents including application submitted by him to the Police of Police Station-Khalapur on 23.4.2012, Ex.C-6, which indicates that prompt action was taken by the complainant. Firstly oral complaint about the theft of the vehicle in question was made by the complainant to the police of PS-Khalapur on 12.4.2012. Thereafter another complaint was lodged on 23.4.2012, Ex.C-6, to the Police Inspector of PS-Khalapur, meaning thereby that there was no delay in informing the police. It is beyond the control of the complainant to submit all these documents. Some duty is also cast upon the opposite parties-Insurance Company. They were required to appoint their own Investigator as per the IRDA guidelines and as per the usual practice to investigate the matter but nothing of the sort has been done by the opposite parties-Insurance Company. Once the complainant had already submitted all the relevant documents, then the concerned Hoshiarpur Branch of the opposite parties- Insurance Company should have contacted the officials of their Corporate Branch in Khalapur area of Maharashtra and could have asked for the documents from the concerned authorities. The complainant has no control over the action of the police authorities and the delay in investigation and tracing out of the vehicle. If the same was not available in the reasonable time, then the opposite parties must compensate the complainant once he fulfilled the required formalities. Admittedly the complainant had submitted the untraceable report from the Police Inspector of the concerned Police Station Ex.C-17 to the opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties-Insurance Company must have confirmed from the concerned Police Station, whether the report is correct or not but the same has also not been denied or rebutted by the Insurance Company. The ground for delay has already been explained. The lodging of the FIR was also beyond the control of the complainant. It is the act of the Police authorities. The complainant could only intimate about the theft and the intimation was given on 12.4.2012. The intimation was again given on 23.4.2012, vide application Ex.C6. The complainant has explained all efforts made by him in lodging the FIR and informing the Insurance Company and the Financier. Hence we find that there is no delay on the part of the complainant. The delay, if any, has been fully explained.

12. It is common practice that the Insurance Companies being in dominant position create problems when their turn to pay claims comes. Moreover, in the case in hand, as discussed above, the complainant produced on record the attested copy of the Certificate dated 10.4.2014, Ex.C-10 and a copy of the same was also given to the opposite parties, which clearly indicates that the untraced report has been forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate, A-Class, Khalapur. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the opposite parties to say that the complainant had not submitted the relevant document i.e. untraced report. The complainant cannot be held responsible for the delay if the police take time in investigation and untraced report is not accepted by the concerned competent Court.