Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he purchased one brand new motor cycle mark CT-100, Model 2018 having Engine No.PFYPJA-68398, Chassis No.MD2B37AY8JPA-24176 from Opposite Party No.2 on 21.05.2018 and at that time, the Opposite Party No.2 itself got insured the motor cycle in question from Opposite Party No.1 vide policy No.OG-19-1213-1802-00000737 valid for the period w.e.f. 01.06.2018 to 31.05.2019. Further alleges that on 04.06.2018 the complainant went to village: Langiana Nawan for religious purpose on his motor cycle and the complainant locked his motor cycle outside the said place and kept the key with him and when he came back, he found that the motor cycle has been stolen by some unknown person. In this regard, the complainant immediately got recorded the FIR No.0087 dated 19.05.2018 under section 379 IPC. In this regard, the complainant also informed Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 appointed surveyor Mr.V.K.Goel and also submitted all the documents as demanded by the surveyor, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not settle the claim of the insured vehicle till date. The repeated requests have been made to the Opposite Parties to settle the claim of the insured vehicle, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant is left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- The Opposite Parties may be directed to settle the claim of the insured vehicle and also to pay Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.
2. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. The complainant had intentionally and with malafide intention, suppressed the material facts and for which the complainant is not entitled to get any kind of relief and compensation. As per the notarised affidavit dated 10.08.2018 of the complainant as well as the intimation to RTO for the theft of the vehicle dated 15.07.2018, the alleged theft took place on 29.05.2018 and the policy was purchased by the complainant from 1.6.2018 to 31.05.2019 and hence, on the date of theft occurred, the motor cycle was not insured. As per the delivery order/ challan dated 21.05.2018 the motor cycle in question was delivered to the complainant by Krishana Motors-Opposite Party No.2 on 21.05.2018. As per the rules, the dealer should have not delivered the motor cycle to the complainant without insurance. Though the motor cycle was stolen on 29.05.2018, it was only on 01.06.2018 at 12:37 PM, the insurance of the motor cycle in question was obtained by the complainant fraudulently from Opposite Party No.1. In this way, the complainant has played a fraud with the Opposite Party No.1. Sh.V.K.Goyal, Detective Centre India, Jalandhar investigated the alleged claim and submitted his report dated 17.07.2018 which clearly establishes that the insurance was procured after theft and then police recorded statement of complainant on 07.06.2018 to cover the vehicle under insurance claim. Mukand Singh complainant wrote a complaint to SHO, P.S.Bagha Purana on 01.06.2018 in which he mentioned the date of theft as 31.05.2018. After the submission of his report Bajaj Allianz, sent two letters dated 19.09.2018 and 26.09.2018 to the complainant and he was requested to comply with the mentioned requirements, therein those letters and after that the Opposite Party No.1 did not receive any response from the complainant and hence, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 04.10.2018. On merits, the Opposite Party No.1 took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
3. Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. The complainant has not come to this District Consumer Commission with clean hands and has rather disclosed the true facts. The true facts of the case are that the vehicle in question purchased by the complainant was under loan agreement and the complainant did not intend to repay the instalments of the loan, she he created the false story of theft of the vehicle as he knew that the vehicle is insured with Opposite Party No.1 and in case the vehicle is stolen, then the Opposite Party No.1 will settle all the loan amount so just with malafide intention, the complainant created a story of theft of vehicle and in fact, the complainant parked his motor cycle in the house of his friend named Sagar Arora and the complainant has also played a fraud with the police authorities and got registered a false FIR for theft of his vehicle. Not only this, the complainant also played a fraud with the bank from whom he took loan for the purchase of the motor cycle in question. Moreover, the vehicle in question is in the custody of P.S.Bagha Purana according to the report dated 21.02.2020 issued by P.S.Bagha Purana and hence, the instant complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the Opposite Party No.2 took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C15 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Saurav Khullar Ex.OP1/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/13 and similarly, Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Vikas Setia Ex.OP2/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/6 and thereafter, the Opposite Parties closed their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions of Opposite Party No.1 and gone through the documents placed on record.
7. The case of the complainant is that he purchased one brand new motor cycle mark CT-100, Model 2018 having Engine No.PFYPJA-68398, Chassis No.MD2B37AY8JPA-24176 from Opposite Party No.2 on 21.05.2018 and at that time, the Opposite Party No.2 itself got insured the motor cycle in question from Opposite Party No.1 vide policy No.OG-19-1213-1802-00000737 valid for the period w.e.f. 01.06.2018 to 31.05.2019. Further alleges that on 04.06.2018 the complainant went to village: Langiana Nawan for religious purpose on his motor cycle and the complainant locked his motor cycle outside the said place and kept the key with him and when he came back, he found that the motor cycle has been stolen by some unknown person. In this regard, the complainant immediately got recorded the FIR No.0087 dated 19.05.2018 under section 379 IPC. In this regard, the complainant also informed Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 appointed surveyor Mr.V.K.Goel and also submitted all the documents as demanded by the surveyor, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not settle the claim of the insured vehicle till date. The repeated requests have been made to the Opposite Parties to settle the claim of the insured vehicle, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contents of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had intentionally and with malafide intention, suppressed the material facts and for which the complainant is not entitled to get any kind of relief and compensation. As per the notarised affidavit dated 10.08.2018 of the complainant as well as the intimation to RTO for the theft of the vehicle dated 15.07.2018, the alleged theft took place on 29.05.2018 and the policy was purchased by the complainant from 1.6.2018 to 31.05.2019 and hence, on the date of theft occurred, the motor cycle was not insured. As per the delivery order/ challan dated 21.05.2018 the motor cycle in question was delivered to the complainant by Krishana Motors-Opposite Party No.2 on 21.05.2018. As per the rules, the dealer should have not delivered the motor cycle to the complainant without insurance. Though the motor cycle was stolen on 29.05.2018, it was only on 01.06.2018 at 12:37 PM, the insurance of the motor cycle in question was obtained by the complainant fraudulently from Opposite Party No.1. In this way, the complainant has played a fraud with the Opposite Party No.1. Sh.V.K.Goyal, Detective Centre India, Jalandhar investigated the alleged claim and submitted his report dated 17.07.2018 which clearly establishes that the insurance was procured after theft and then police recorded statement of complainant on 07.06.2018 to cover the vehicle under insurance claim. Mukand Singh complainant wrote a complaint to SHO, P.S.Bagha Purana on 01.06.2018 in which he mentioned the date of theft as 31.05.2018. After the submission of his report Bajaj Allianz, sent two letters dated 19.09.2018 and 26.09.2018 to the complainant and he was requested to comply with the mentioned requirements, therein those letters and after that the Opposite Party No.1 did not receive any response from the complainant and hence, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 04.10.2018. Bare perusal of the duly attested copy of the affidavit Ex.OP1/3 placed on record by Opposite Parties shows that in his affidavit, the complainant has specifically deposed that his motor cycle CT 100, Model 2018, Engine No.PFYPJA-68398, Chassis No.MD2B37AY8JPA-24176 has been stolen on 29.05.2018. But the perusal of the policy documents Ex.OP1/2 (OP2/5 same document) has clearly mentioned that the said motor cycle was insured with the Opposite Parties for the period w.e.f. 1.6.2018 to 31.05.2019. In his complaint, the complainant has also mentioned that the motor cycle in question was insured with Opposite Party No.1 vide policy No.OG-19-1213-1802-00000737 valid for the period w.e.f. 01.06.2018 to 31.05.2019. Not only this, the complainant has also made a complaint to SHO, Bagha Purana regarding theft of his motor cycle in question and in this application, the complainant has also specifically mentioned that the motor cycle in question was stolen by someone on 31.05.2018. Further contention of the Opposite Parties is that the vehicle in question purchased by the complainant was under loan agreement and the complainant did not intend to repay the instalments of the loan, so he created the false story of theft of the vehicle as he knew that the vehicle is insured with Opposite Party No.1 and in case the vehicle is stolen, then the Opposite Party No.1 will settle all the loan amount, so just with malafide intention, the complainant may have created a story of theft of vehicle and in fact, the complainant parked his motor cycle in the house of his friend named Sagar Arora and the complainant has got registered FIR for theft of his vehicle. Not only this, the complainant also withhold the information from the bank from whom he got sanctioned the loan for the purchase of the motor cycle in question. Moreover, the vehicle in question is in the custody of P.S.Bagha Purana according to the report dated 21.02.2020 issued by P.S.Bagha Purana and hence, the instant complaint is not maintainable, but however, this contention of the Opposite Parties has nowhere denied by the complainant by producing any iota of evidence on record, rather despite providing sufficient opportunities, the complainant did not come present before this District Consumer Commission to prove his case, and hence we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
10. This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:04.04.2022.
