BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.288 of 2015
Date of Instt. 02.07.2015
Date of Decision :19.05.2016
Kulwinder Kaur aged about 58 years wife of Sukhdev Singh R/o H.No.16, SPS Colony back side Sub Tehsil Tanda Urmur Tehsil Dasuya District Hoshiarpur.
..........Complainant
Versus
1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd, 2nd Floor, Satnam Complex, BMC Chowk, GT Road, Jalandhar.
2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., registered office GE Palaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Punne-411006, India.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Sunil Kumar Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Raman Sharma Adv., counsel for OPs.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant got insured his vehicle i.e. Honda Activa Scooter (bearing registration No.PB07-AU-1018 as per RC) with OP vide insurance cover note No.OG-15-1202-1802-00006402 for the period from 23.9.2014 to 22.9.2015. The complainant submitted that on the intervening night of 4-5/2/2015 when the family members of the complainant were sleeping, some unknown persons entered into the house of the complainant by climbing over the boundary wall and committed theft in the house of the complainant. They have also taken the aforesaid Honda Activa Scooter alongwith other articles, three gas cylinders, etc. The complainant came to know about the theft of the aforesaid scooter on 5.2.2015 and he immediately reported to the police of PS Tanda vide rapat No.341-BH dated 5.2.2015 which was tagged with FIR No.17 of 2015 PS Tanda, District Hoshiarpur. The police could not trace out the aforesaid vehicle. The claim was lodged with the OP. The OP got investigated the matter through Detective Centre (India), Jalandhar who submitted their report dated 24.4.2015. Through this report, the investigator submitted that loss has occurred due to improper care taken by the complainant as she left one key in the ignition and other key in the diggi of the said vehicle. Ultimately, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 12.5.2015 on the ground that the complainant reported the matter regarding theft of her insured vehicle to the OP after a lapse of 67 days. Complainant submitted that the complainant informed the OP on the same day i.e. 5.2.2015 to the agent of the OP at Raja Motors through Akash Honda, Hoshiarpur. The OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay the amount of the insured vehicle. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply pleading that as per complainant version, the theft of the insured vehicle took place on the intervening night of 4-5/2/2015. Whereas intimation of this theft was given to the OPs for the first time on 13.4.2015 at call centre of the OP as per details provided by the call centre to the OPs. Whereas, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the insured is liable to give information in writing to the OP immediately after the loss/theft of the insured vehicle. The OPs appointed investigator i.e. Investigator Detective Centre, India who submitted his report dated 24.5.2015 and he recorded the statements of Kulwinder Kaur(complainant), Karamjit Kaur, Rupinder Kaur (daughters of the complainant), Kuldeep Kaur and Manoj Kumar (neighbours of the complainant) who deposed that the vehicle was parked unlocked with its one key in the ignition of the vehicle and second key in the diggi of the vehicle and even the main gate was not locked and the same was simply bolted. Complainant has not taken proper care for the safety of the insured vehicle. As such, complainant herself has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 12.5.2015. OPs denied other material averments of the complainants.
3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavits Ex.OA and Ex.OB alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O12 and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got insured his vehicle i.e. Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration No.PB07-AU-1018 as per RC Ex.C7 with OP vide insurance cover note No.OG-15-1202-1802-00006402 for the period from 23.9.2014 to 22.9.2015. The complainant submitted that on the intervening night of 4-5/2/2015 when the family members of the complainant were sleeping, some unknown persons entered into the house of the complainant by climbing over the boundary wall and committed theft in the house of the complainant. They have taken away the aforesaid Honda Activa Scooter alongwith other articles i.e. three gas cylinders, etc. The complainant came to know about the theft of the aforesaid scooter on 5.2.2015 and he immediately reported to the police of PS Tanda vide rapat No.341-BH dated 5.2.2015 vide complaint Ex.C3 which was tagged with FIR No.17 of 2015 PS Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, copy of which is Ex.C4. The police could not trace out the aforesaid vehicle. The claim was lodged with the OP vide claim No.OC16-1202 Ex.O1. The OP got investigated the matter through Detective Centre (India), Jalandhar who submitted their report dated 24.4.2015 Ex.O2. The investigator also recorded the statements of Kulwinder Kaur complainant Ex.O3 duly singed by Kulwinder Kaur, statements of Kuldeep Kaur and Manjor Kumar neighbours Ex.O5 and O6, statements of Karamjit Kaur and Rupinder Kaur (daughters of the complaint) Ex.O4 and Ex.O7 and through this report Ex.O2 the investigator submitted that loss has occurred due to improper care taken by the complainant as she left one key in the ignition and other key in the diggi of the said vehicle. On the basis of this report, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 12.5.2015 Ex.O10 on the ground that the complainant reported the matter regarding theft of her insured vehicle to the OP after a lapse of 67 days. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant informed the OP on the same day i.e. 5.2.2015 to the agent of the OP at Raja Motors through Akash Honda, Hoshiarpur. The OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the OPs is that as per complainant version, the theft of insured vehicle took place on the intervening night of 4-5/2/2015. Whereas intimation of this theft was given to the OPs for the first time on 13.4.2015 at call centre of the OP as per details Ex.O1 provided by the call centre to the OPs. Whereas, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the insured is liable to give information in writing to the OP immediately after the loss/theft of the insured vehicle. The OPs appointed investigator i.e. Investigator Detective Centre India, Jalandhar who submitted his report dated 24.5.2015 and he recorded the statements of Kulwinder Kaur complainant Ex.O3 duly singed by Kulwinder Kaur, statements of Kuldeep Kaur and Manjor Kumar neighbours Ex.O5 and O6, statements of Karamjit Kaur and Rupinder Kaur (daughters of the complaint) Ex.O4 and Ex.O7 who deposed that the vehicle was parked with its one key in the ignition of the vehicle and second key in the diggi of the vehicle and even the main gate was not locked and the same was simply bolted. So, complainant has also not taken proper care for the safety of the insured vehicle. As such, complainant herself has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Learned counsel for the OP submitted that OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 12.5.2015 Ex.O10. The learned counsel for the OPs submitted that under these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got insured his vehicle i.e. Honda Activa Scooter with OP vide insurance cover note No.OG-15-1202-1802-00006402 Ex.C8 for the period from 23.9.2014 to 22.9.2015. The said vehicle was stolen by unknown person/thieves on the intervening night of 4-5/2/2015 by climbing over the boundary wall of the house of the complainant. The matter was reported to the police on 5.2.2015 by the complainant vide application Ex.C3, on the basis of which rapat No.341-BH dated 5.2.2015 was recorded at PS Tanda District Hoshiarpur which was tagged with FIR No.17 of 2015, copy of which is Ex.C4. The said vehicle could not traced out by the police. The claim was lodged by the complainant with the OP but the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter Ex.O10 dated 12.5.2015. The OP also got the matter investigated through Investigator Detective Centre India, Jalandhar who recorded the statements of Kulwinder Kaur complainant Ex.O3 duly singed by Kulwinder Kaur, statements of Kuldeep Kaur and Manjor Kumar neighbours Ex.O5 and O6, statements of Karamjit Kaur and Rupinder Kaur (daughters of the complaint) Ex.O4 and Ex.O7 and submitted this report dated 24.4.2015 Ex.O2 with the conclusion that the theft of insured vehicle has taken place due to negligence on the part of the complainant as she left one key in the ignition and other key in the diggi of insured vehicle. Further the complainant reported the matter regarding theft of the vehicle in question to the OP for the first time on call centre of the OP on 13.4.2015 as is evident from information of call centre Ex.O1. The OP wrote letter to the complainant dated 29.4.2015 Ex.O8 asking the complainant to explain the delay in informing the OPs regarding theft of the insured vehicle but the complainant could not explain the delay regarding information about the theft of the vehicle, to the OP nor the complainant could produce any evidence to prove her averments that she informed Raga Motors Private Limited, Jalandhar through Akash Honda, Tanda from whom the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question nor the complainant had filed any affidavit of said Akash Honda in this regard. Whereas, the OP has produced on record the information chart of the call centre Ex.O1 which fully proves that the complainant informed the OP for the first time regarding the theft of insured vehicle through call centre on 13.4.2015 at 18.26 hours which fully proved that OP was informed regarding the theft of the vehicle in question after a lapse of period of 67 days because the theft of the insured vehicle has allegedly taken place on the intervening night of 4-5/2/2015 but the OP was informed for the first time regarding the theft of the insured vehicle on 13.4.2015. It has been held by Hon'ble National Commission in case New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs. Trilochan Jane 2012(4) CPJ 441 that “where there is delay in reporting the matter regarding the theft of the vehicle to the insurer for days, it would amount to violation of condition of the policy as it deprives the insurer of valuable rights to investigate to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing out the vehicle. The repudiation of the claim on this ground was justified”. Same view has been taken by Hon'ble National Commission in case Batta Valji Laxman Vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited 2015(1) CPR 801 that “where there was delay in reporting the matter regarding the theft of insured vehicle was only 8 days”. Here in the present case, the complainant could not explain the delay of 67 days in informing the OP regarding the theft of the insured vehicle and it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy in question. So, OP has been deprived of its valuable right to investigate regarding the commission of theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle. The OP was, therefore, justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on this score only vide letter Ex.O10 dated 12.5.2015.
9. Consequently, we hold that complaint is without merit and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
19.05.2016 Member President
