DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/67/2023
Date of Institution: 09.06.2023
Date of Decision: 18.07.2024
Girdhari Lal son of Shri Kapoor Chand resident of Patti Gill Khota, VPO Shaina, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala M.No. 82888-00058.
…Complainant Versus
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Head Office of Claim Department, SCO 156-159, Second Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009 through its Authorized Signatory (Motor Claims Manager).
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager Branch at Parbhat Cinema Road, First Floor, upper Central Bank of India, Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Present: Sh. A.K. Jindal Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. Bhushan Kumar Garg Adv counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant Girdhari Lal filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Head Office of Claim Department, SCO 156-159, Second Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009 through its Authorized Signatory (Motor Claims Manager) & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is the owner of a vehicle i.e. Motor Cycle Make Bajaj CT-100 having registration No. PB-19-S-4758 having Engine No. PF22PKM35658, Chassis No. MD 2B37A22KPM23027 Model 2019 and the complainant purchased Insurance Policy from the opposite parties for his said Two Wheller package policy for 5 years at the time of purchase of this Bajaj CT-100 Motor Cycle and the opposite parties issued an Insurance Policy No. OG- 20-1217-1828-00000950, which was valid from 27 May 2019 to 26 May 2024. It is further alleged that the complainant used his said Motor Cycle in routine and on 24-11-2021 the said motor cycle was parked in the building premises of Rice Sheller of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant arranged a truck of stone crasher in his rice Sheller for his use and that truck driven by Sikander Singh alias Shinda, who was brought the said truck in the rice Sheller of the complainant and one person also accompanied with Sikander Singh alias Shinda and both reached at 12:30 on 24-11-2021 in the Rice Sheller of the complainant, when the stone crasher was unloaded from the truck then a person who accompanied with Sikander Singh alias Shinda demanded the key of motor cycle from the complainant and that person stated that he wants to brought some eatable goods for him from the market. On his request, the complainant handed over the key of the said motor cycle to said person, who took the motor cycle from Sheller mill, but the driver of the truck Sikander Singh alias Shinda loudly stated that this person is not accompanied with him, but the alleged person ran away along with motor cycle of the complainant from the sheller mill premises. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged his complaint with the Illaqa Police of PS, Sehna and PS Sehna duly entered an FIR No. 77 of 08-12-2021 under Section 420/406 IPC against the unknown person on the statement of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant lodged his claim about the lost of his motor cycle along with copy of FIR and other relevant documents, but the opposite parties refused and repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 19-02-2022 without considering the genuine claim of the complainant. This act of the opposite parties is against law and facts and this is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties be directed to reimburse the amount of claim to the tune of Rs. 32,908/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till realization.
2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint opposite parties appeared and filed written reply by taking preliminary submission/objections on the grounds that the complainant did not inform the insurance company in time about the incident and did not lodge the claim within a reasonable time as prescribed under the policy terms and conditions. It is further submitted that the complainant also did not intimate/inform the police regarding the theft of the vehicle and as per the policy terms and conditions the insured is required to intimate the loss to the insurance company and the police authorities, immediately but in the present case the intimation of the incident was given to the police after 14 days and to the insurance company after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 31 days, which is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It is further submitted that as per the statement of the complainant to the Insurance Claim Investigator and as per the statement of the complainant given to the Police it is clear that the complainant had himself handed over the insured vehicle to an unknown person who eloped with the insured vehicle, as such it is clear that the insured vehicle got stolen because of the sheer carelessness of the complainant and the answering opposite parties cannot be held responsible for indemnifying the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant has willfully concealed letters dated 02.02.2022, 09.02.2022 and 19.02.2022 whereby, the complainant was given repeated opportunities to explain as why its claim should not be repudiated for violation of Condition 4 of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further submitted that the complainant is also guilty of violation of Condition 1 of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 24.11.2021, whereas the F.I.R was registered after a delay of 14 (Fourteen) days and the opposite parties were intimated after a delay of 31 (Thirty-One) days. On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the averments as mentioned in the preliminary objections of the reply.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has suffered the statement on 25.1.2024 that I do not want to file any rejoinder against the version of opposite parties.
5. The complainant tendered into evidence copy of Insurance policy as Ex.C-1 (containing 10 pages), copy of FIR as Ex.C-2 (containing 5 pages), copy of repudiation letter as Ex.C-3, affidavit of Girdhari lal as Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the case the opposite parties tendered into evidence copy of policy with terms and conditions as Ex.OPs-1 (13 pages), copy of letter dated 02.02.2022 with postal receipt as Ex.OPs-2 & OPs-3, copy of letter dated 09.02.2022 with postal receipt as Ex.OPs- 4 & OPs-5, copy of letter dated 19.02.2022 with postal receipt as Ex.OPs-6 & OPs- 7, copy of letter dated 01.03.2022 with postal receipt as Ex.OPs-8 & OPs-9, copy of investigation report as Ex.OPs-10 (12 pages), copy of FIR as Ex.OPs-11 (6pages), copy of claim form as Ex.OPs-12, affidavit of Saurav Khullar as Ex.OPs- 13, affidavit of Gagandeep Singh as Ex.OPs-14 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the opposite parties.
8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is the owner of a vehicle i.e. Motor Cycle Make Bajaj CT-100 having registration No. PB-19-S-4758 having Engine No. PF22PKM35658, Chassis No. MD 2B37A22KPM23027 Model 2019 and the complainant purchased Insurance Policy from the opposite parties for his said Two Wheller package policy for 5 years at the time of purchase of this Bajaj CT-100 Motor Cycle and the opposite parties issued an Insurance Policy No. OG- 20-1217-1828-00000950, which was valid from 27 May 2019 to 26 May 2024 (as per Ex.C-1). It is further argued that the said motor cycle was parked in the building premises of Rice Sheller of the complainant and arranged a truck of stone crasher in his rice Sheller for his use and that truck driven by Sikander Singh alias Shinda, who was brought the said truck in the Rice Sheller of the complainant and one person also accompanied with Sikander Singh alias Shinda and both reached at 12:30 on 24-11-2021. It is argued that the said person who accompanied with Sikander Singh alias Shinda demanded the key of motor cycle from the complainant and that person stated that he wants to brought some eatable goods for him from the market and on his request the complainant handed over the key of the said motor cycle to said person, who took the motor cycle from Sheller mill but the driver of the truck Sikander Singh alias Shinda loudly stated that this person is not accompanied with him but the alleged person ran away along with motor cycle of the complainant from the sheller mill premises. It is further argued that the complainant lodged his complaint with the Illaqa Police of PS, Sehna and PS Sehna duly entered an FIR No. 77 of 08-12-2021 under Section 420/406 IPC against the unknown person on the statement of the complainant. It is argued that the complainant lodged his claim about the lost of his motor cycle along with copy of FIR and other relevant documents, but the opposite parties refused and repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 19-02-2022 without considering the genuine claim of the complainant.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant did not inform the insurance company in time about the incident and did not lodge the claim within a reasonable time as prescribed under the policy terms and conditions. It is further argued that the complainant also did not intimate/inform the police regarding the theft of the vehicle and as per the policy terms and conditions the insured is required to intimate the loss to the insurance company and the police authorities, immediately but in the present case the intimation of the incident was given to the police after 14 days and to the insurance company after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 31 days, which is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It is further argued that as per the statement of the complainant to the Insurance Claim Investigator and as per the statement of the complainant given to the Police it is clear that the complainant had himself handed over the insured vehicle to an unknown person who eloped with the insured vehicle, as such it is clear that the insured vehicle got stolen because of the sheer carelessness of the complainant and the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for indemnifying the complainant. It is further argued that the complainant has willfully concealed letters dated 02.02.2022, 09.02.2022 and 19.02.2022 whereby, the complainant was given repeated opportunities to explain as why its claim should not be repudiated for violation of Condition 4 of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further argued that the complainant is also guilty of violation of Condition 1 of the terms and conditions of the policy. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that in the present case the complainant has failed to place on record untraceable report issued by the Court as the same is necessary to find out that the vehicle in question is recovered or not. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that, the present case is not fall within the definition of theft as in the present case the FIR was registered Under Section 420 and 406 of IPC i.e. for misappropriation and for fraud.
10. We have carefully gone through the facts of the present case and evidence produced by both the parties from which it shows that the complainant has intimated the Police on 8.12.2021 vide registered FIR No. 0077 (as per Ex.C-2) and the date of theft/incident is 24.11.2021 and there is delay of 14 days and we are of the view that the same was unable the Police to recover or trace the vehicle in question immediately. Moreover, the complainant has failed to place on record any investigation report of the Police that the vehicle in question is traced or not. It provides that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle. Per contra, the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most, could ascertain the factum regarding the theft of the vehicle. We are of the view that it was incumbent upon the complainant, to explain the delay in lodging the FIR after so many days and there is nothing in the complaint that why the complainant had failed to lodge an FIR immediately after the occurrence. We are further of the view that the complainant has not complied with the conditions of the insurance policy. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties also submitted the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided on 29.3.2022 in case titled Kanwarjit Singh Kang Vs M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. which also supported the case of the opposite parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in the said case delay of eight days in lodging the FIR remains unexplained and does not stand in conformity with the requirement of immediate action. Moreover, it is also not the case of the complainant that he is an illiterate person or he did not know the complication of lodging the FIR or lodging the claim with the opposite parties. The complainant has also failed to prove that under what circumstances the vehicle in question was stolen. We are further of the view that in the present case there is undue delay in lodging the FIR and further in informing the opposite parties and the same is not satisfactorily explained by the complainant.
11. Therefore, we find no merits in the present complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
18th Day of July, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
