Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing no. HR26CC2008 duly insured with OP Ins. Co. vide policy bearing no. 11365290  w.e.f. 09.09.2013 to 08.09.2014 for a sum insured of Rs. 14,42,326/-. It is further alleged in the complaint that the vehicle in question is purchased for personal use of Mr. Kuldeep one of the Director of complainant’s company.
2. On the evening of 11.01.2014, Mr. Kuldeep Sharma visited Fortis Hospital Chirag Enclave, New Delhi to attend his father who was admitted in the said hospital. He parked the vehicle in front of the gate of the hospital. The guard present at the gate asked for the key and as such Mr. Kuleep handed over the keys of the vehicle to guard of Fortis Hospital.
3. It is further alleged by the complainant that when Mr. Kuldeep returned back after attending his father he could not found the vehicle in question and as such lodged the complaint with P.S Greater Kailash and the intimation of the theft was duly given to OP Ins. Co. It  is further alleged by the complainant that he provided the requisite documents to OP Ins. Co. for processing the claim as and when required. It is further alleged by the complainant that despite regular visit and continuous follow up OP Ins. Co. did not settle its claim. Complainant also sent legal notice dated 17.11.2014 through his counsel thereby asking the OP Ins. Co. to settle the claim in question but all in vain. Being aggrieved by the conduct of OP complainant approached this commission for redressal of its grievance.
4. Notice of the complaint was sent to OP. OP filed it written statement  thereby denying and deficiency in service on its part. The OP has taken the preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground that this commission had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint and the present complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties i,e finance company. 
5. On merit the OP has justified the repudiation and has stated that the complainant left the key of the vehicle with one Sh. Manish without taking any token or parking slip who hang the keys inside a cabin which was unlocked and unattended thereby giving exposure to passers by culprit to take away the original key and stealing of the vehicle, hence, the OP has rightly repudiated the claim in terms of the violation of condition no.4 of the policy terms and conditions. It is further prayed that the present complaint is devoid of merit, hence, be dismissed with cost.
6. Rejoinder to the WS of OP filed, thereby, denying the averments made in the written statement. Sh. Kuldeep Sharma filed evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of complainant’s company. Ms. Shivali Sharma Sr. legal Executive of OP Ins. Co. filed evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP.
7. Both the parties filed their respective written arguments. Despite several; opportunities none appeared on behalf of OP for addressing arguments. We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Ashok Mittal and have perused the record.
8. The OP has strongly challenged the maintainability of the present complaint on two counts, firstly, on territorial jurisdiction and secondly on non joinder of the necessary party, hence, needs to be decided first.
9.  It is stated in the written statement that neither the complainant has purchased the policy from the Pitampura office of the OP nor the alleged theft has took place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission (constitution the part of cause of action),  hence, this Commission lack territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

We have carefully gone through the documents annexed with the complaint and the written statement filed by OP. Admittedly, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by OP on 20.08.2014 from its Pritampura Office, hence, the cause of action for filing the present complaint arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Since the claim of the complainant was repudiated from the Pritampura office of the OP which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, hence this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

10. The OP has stated in WS at para 8 that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of the necessary party. It is further stated that the vehicle in question was duly hypothecated with the bank from whom the complainant got financed the vehicle and as per IMT Clause 7 the claim amount is required to be paid to the pledge bank and not to the insured where there is a total loss, hence, the present complaint be dismissed on this sole ground.

We have gone through the letter dated 09.09.2013 of Bank of India placed on record by OP Ins. Co. with its written statement as annexure D. The bare perusal of the aforesaid letter makes it clear that the vehicle in question was hypothecated with Bank of India and the complainant neither haddisclosed the status of the loan in question nor had impleaded Bank of India in the array of parties as it is a necessary party as per India Motor Tariff clause 7 the contents of which are reproduced as under :-

IMT.7. Vehicles subject to Hypothecation Agreement It is hereby declared and agreed that the vehicle insured is pledged to / hypothecated with ……………….. (hereinafter referred to as the "Pledgee") and it is further understood and agreed that the Pledgee is interested in any monies which but for this Endorsement would be payable to the insured under this policy in respect of such loss or damage to the vehicle insured as cannot be made good by repair and / or replacement of parts and such monies shall be paid to the Pledgee as long as they are the Pledgee of the vehicle insured and their receipt shall be a full and final discharge to the insurer in respect of such loss or damage.,

In view of the above provision we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is bad for non- joinder of the necessary party i.e Bank of India who had financed the vehicle in question.

11. We have also gone through the repudiation letter and found that Mr. Kuldeep Sharma parked the vehicle in question outside the gate of the Hospital and handed over the key to the guard Sh. Manish Kumar who hang the keys inside a cabin which was unlocked and unattended thereby giving exposure to passers by culprit to take away the original key and stealing of the vehicle. The entire conduct of Sh. Kuldeep Sharma sets a glaring example of gross and absolute violation of the terms and condition of the policy as he failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from any loss or damage as such the claim of the complainant   is squarely covered under condition number 4 of the policy terms and conditions and rightly repudiated.
12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is bad for joinder of the necessary party i.e. Bank of India further on merit also complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in service against OP. We therefore finds no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.
13. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  25.04.2024.

Sanjay Kumar              Nipur Chandna                        Rajesh

               President                            Member                              Member