DHARAM SINGH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this complaint filed under Sec.12 read with Sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant has sought direction to the respondent Insurance Company to pay Rs.2,50,000/ - along with interest @ 18% towards the sum assured under the policy in respect of a truck which was allegedly hijacked along with its driver besides compensation of Rs.2,41,167/ - on account of loss of income at Rs.5,000/ - per month and the cost of Rs.20,000/ -.

(2.) PUT briefly the facts leading to this complaint are as under: complainant No.1 purchased a truck No. DIL 2223 in August, 1986 with the financial assistance of complainant No.2. Complainant No.2 obtained commercial vehicle motor policy in respect of aforesaid truck for the period from 29.8.1990 to 28.8.1991 and sum assured under the policy was Rs.2,50,000/ -. The policy was subject to hire purchase endorsement in favour of complainant No.2. On 17.5.1991 the truck was given to Sh. Jasbir Singh as its driver in Ludhiana. Incidentally Shri Jasbir Singh happened to the real brother of complainant No.1. It is alleged that on that date the truck along with the driver was hijacked by some unknown persons and till date neither is there trace of the driver nor of the truck.

(3.) COMPLAINANT No.1 lodged report for the incident at Ludhiana on 15.7.1991 as he continued making hectic search about his brother and the truck for nearly two months and when there was not trace of the truck and the driver he lodged the report with the police. Complainant No.2 by its communication dated 6.11.1991 forwarded to the O. P. his claim, intimation about the theft, date of hijack of the vehicle and copy of FIR. On receiving no response from the respondent the complainant sent reminders dated 5.8.1991, 12.9.1991. Vide its letter dated 6.11.1991 complainant No.2 forwarded to the O. P. copy of final investigation report to the effect that neither the vehicle nor the driver was traceable. Inspite of this the O. P. did not take any action and as a result the complainant approached the Regional Office of the O. P. Still there was no response from the Regional Office. Complainant No.2 wrote series of letters to the O. P. reminding it about the long outstanding total loss claim followed by legal notice dated 3.6.1994 but to no effect. Hence this complaint.