ORDER

26.04.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that the present complaint initially filed against Bharti Axa Genreal Insurance Co. Ltd. During the pendency of the present complaint present OP ICICI Lombard Genreal Insurance Co. has taken over, therefore, impleaded in place of Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. It is stated that complainant had purchased a Ford Figo bearing registration no. DL-10CF 0219 Chasis No.59908 Engine No.59908 modal 2012  from Sh. Kushal Singh S/o Sh. Dhan Singh R/o C-637, Block-C, Behind Water Tank, Sector-1, Rohini, Delhi on 10.07.2014 and the registered owner also signed form no.29 and form no.30 along with delivering receipt and cash receipt all dated 10.07.2014 in favour of complainant for transfer of said vehicle.
2. It is stated that previous owner of the said car namely Khushal Singh also submitted an application dated 10.07.2014 to the OP for transfer of insurance in respect of above said car in the name of present complaint. It is further stated that said vehicle was insured from respondent on 04.04.2014 vide policy no.FPV-11570505/12/04/d1124P with the registration number DL-10-CF 0219 Chasis No.59908 Engine No.59908. It is stated that the above said car was inspected by Secure Auto Technical Service Pvt Ltd on 14.07.2014 on behalf of OP. It is further stated that on 14-15.07.2014, the complainant’s vehicle no. DL-10CF 0219 Chasis No.59908 Engine no.59908 eas stolen from the G-26 Block, Near Mother Dairy, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi. The complainant informed about this to respondent’s office. The FIR was registered in the police station Rohini South, Delhi by complainant. The FIR No.547/2014 dated 15.07.2014.
3. It is stated that after theft of the said vehicle, the complainant has not received any information related to his vehicle. The police have filed final untraced report about this theft in the court of Sh. Dharmender Singh, M.M, (North West) Rohini, Delhi has accepted untraced report vide order dated 21.11.2014. It is further stated that by complainant has submitted all documents related to this vehicle theft to branch office of OP at Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. 2^nd Floor, BIGJOS Tower A-8, Netaji Subhash Place New Delhi-110034. It is staed that complainant’s theft claim is pending with OP office for last ten months. The required documents had been received in Branch office of the OP. It is further stated that the complainant had asked current status about theft claim from OP/insurance company and the reasons of delaying claim, the complainant visited branch office of the OP again and again but did not find any suitable answer from OP officers. The OP always misguided the complainant on one pretext or other.
4. It is stated that complainant got sent a legal notice through his counsel dated 10.04.2015 calling upon the OP to make the payment  of IDV amount of Rs.3,43,000/- along the compensation and damages to the complainant. It is further stated that legal notice was duly received in the office of the OP and despite receipt of the legal notice the OP has not made any payment to the complainant hence the present complaint.
5. The complainant has seeking direction to OP to make the payment of IDV amount of Rs.3,43,000/- since 15.07.2014 till the realization of IDV amount, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- compensation for mental agony, harassment and hardship due to misconduct, to pay Rs.25,000/- damages per month for deprived of enjoyment of car due to deficiency in service, to pay cost of litigation and any other order which deems fit and proper and cost of complaint be also awarded.
6. OP filed WS and taken preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of serviced on the part of respondent company. It is stated that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as he is not the registered owner of vehicle bearing no. DL 10CF 0219 on the day of alleged occurrence, therefore, there is no privity of contract between complainant and insurance company. The present complaint is not maintainable as no consideration was paid by complainant to insurance company. It is further stated that the claim under the policy no.FPV/11570505/12/04/D1124P already stand repudiated vide letter dated 27.01.2016 and same was sent to insured Kushal Singh.
7. It is stated that complainant has concealded the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. It is stated that complainant has falsely alleged that previous owner has submitted an application dated 10.07.2014 to the respondent company for transfer of policy. It is stated that complainant has filed forged and fabricated form no.29 and 30 before this Hon’ble Forum to mislead and to show that he had purchased the vehicle on 10.07.2014 whereas infact form 29 and 30 collected by the investigator shows the date as 14.07.2014. It is stated that the signatures of Kushal Singh are different which clearly fortifies that complainant has filed false and fabricated documents.
8. It is stated that in his statement given to investigator after theft of vehicle complainant has stated that the vehicle was purchased on 13.07.2014 than by no imagination intimation about transfer of policy by previous owner can happen on 10.07.2014. It is stated that there is delivery receipt on letter head of Rohini-Pitampura Car Welfare Association wherein date is mentioned as 11.04.2014, it is imperative to mention that some manipulation on date clearly appears as writing with two different pen appears to be mentioned on it.
9. It is stated that a letter dated 11.01.2016 was written to the insured Kushal Singh requesting him to provide date of same to which he did not replied, therefore, present case is fit where this Hon’ble Forum can use its discretionary powers and dismiss the complaint with cost as per section 26 of CP Act. It is further stated that present complaint is not maintainable as there is no compliance of General Regulation 17 of All India Motor Tariff. It is further stated that no requisition for transfer of policy was received from insured Khushal Singh or the complainant as per GR 17, policy cannot be transferred unless specific request from transferee alongwith consent of transferer is received and in present case no request for transfer of policy was received either from complainant or insured Khushal Singh.

10. It is stated that theft occurred on 14-15.07.2014 and intimation was given for the first time about the theft on 19.07.2014 therefore, there is  a delay of four days which is in violation of policy conditions. It is further stated that due to delay in intimation the respondent company has lost its valuable opportunity  and right to trace the vehicle and investigate the matter in a proper manner, therefore, there is violation of condition 1 of the policy, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The OP1 has referred to the judgment of NIC Vs. Charanjeet Singh FA No.1439/2007 (NC), Rang Lal (deceased) Vs. Manager UIIC RP No.1362/2011 decided on 01.09.2011 and Oriental Insurance Company Vs Parvesh Chander Chaddha CA No6739/2010 decided on 17.08.2010 (Supreme Court).
11. It is stated that present complaint involves complicated question of facts as well as law, which requires elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination and cross examination of the witnesses are to be done for the proper disposal of the complaint, therefore, the this consumer forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is stated that no intimation of transfer of vehicle was ever given to answering respondent. The complainant himself went to Secure Auto to get his vehicle inspected. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
13. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint. It is stated that complainant purchased the car in question on 10.07.2014 from Khushal Singh through a used car dealer who is a registered member of Rohini-Pitampura Car Dealers Welfare Association and possession was handed over on 11.07.2014 after making full and final payment to the previous owner. It is further stated that complainant had filed the copies of form no.29 and 30 duly signed by previous owner. It is stated that previous owner had duly signed the application for transfer of insurance policy of the car in question in favour of complainant. It is further stated that RK Finance company is not the necessary party because as and when the payment claim will be made by OP in respect of car in question, the same shall be released only after NOC from finance company. It is stated that complainant is entitled for all the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
14. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint. Complainant relied on copy of transport department receipt  for transfer of ownership of car Ex.CW1/A (Colly.), copy of application dated 10.07.2014 Ex.CW1/B, copy of form no.29 and 30 Ex.CW1/C and CW1/D, copy of insurance policy Ex.CW1/E, copy of RC Ex.CW1/F, copy of car inspection report Ex.CW1/G, copy of FIR no.547/2014 dated 15.07.2014 Ex.CW1/H, untraced report order of LD. M.M Sh. Dharmendra Singh rohini, north west dated 21.10.2014 Ex.CW1/I, acceptance of untraced report order Ex.CW1/J, copy of legal notice dated 10.04.2015 alongwith original AD card Ex.CW1/K and L and copy of new RC car in the name of complainant Ex.CW1/M.
15. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Shivali Sharma. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. The OP relied on copy of repudiation letter Ex.RW1/AA, copy of claim Ex.RW1/A, copy of form 29 and 30 provided to investigator Ex.RW1/B, copy of delivery receipt of rohini pitampura car welfare association showing date as 11.07.2014 Ex.RW1/C, letter dated 15.07.2014 Ex.RW1/D, copy of policy  conditions Ex.RW1/E, copy of Motor Claim notification Ex.RW1/F, copy of investigator report Ex.RW1/G and statement of complainant given to investigator Ex.RW1/H.
16. Evidence by way of affidavit also  filed by Sh. Sanjeev kumar Chief investigator who relied the report dated 03.05.2015 Ex.RW1/G and the statement of complainant Ex.RW1/H.
17. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as OP.
18. We have heard Sh. Raj Singh Rana counsel for complainant. Despite given ample opportunities neither counsel for OP nor AR of OP appeared to address oral arguments. However, we have gone through the written arguments filed by OP.
19. The complainant’s case is that he has purchased a Ford Figo Car bearing registration no. DL 10CF 0219, chasis no.59908, model 2012 purchased from Sh. Khushal Singh S/o Sh. Dhan Singh on 10.07.2014. The Khushal Singh also signed form no.29 and 30 alongwith delivery receipt and cash receipt dated 10.07.2014. The said car was stolen on 14.07.2014 and complainant got registered FIR at P.S Rohini South bearing no.547/2014 dated 15.07.2014. The police filed untraced report which was accepted by Ld. M.M Sh. Dharmender Singh vide order dated 21.11.2014. The complainant is seeking the claim of Rs.3,43,000/- for the stolen car. The complainant has filed copy of form no.29 and 30 dated 10.07.2014 and an application for insurance transfer dated 10.07.2014. However none of these documents bearing receiving stamp or acknowledgment of the concerned department or insurance company.
20. The insurance company repudiated the claim which did not grant claim and taken the obligation that complainant Sanjeev Kumar Rajput has no locus standi to file present complaint and there is no privity of contract between insurance company and complainant. The insurance company as per evidence filed on record filed copy of form 29 and 30, delivery receipt. These documents bears date of 14.07.2014 and delivery receipt of car bears date of 11.07.2014. The documents filed by complainant and OP insurance company bears different dates. We have carefully gone through these documents the form 29 and 30 and application for transfer of insurance which bears totally different signatures of Khushal Singh form signatures of form 29 and 30 and delivery receipt filed by insurance company. The documents filed by insurance company also having the receipt of OP insurance company. This clearly establish that complainant had filed these documents with insurance company on 05.05.2015. the complainant has failed to explain the discrepancies of dates and signatures on form29 and 30 filed by him before this commission and filed before insurance company. Prima facie the documents filed by complainant before commission appears not to be genuine and the OP also  filed affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar, the investigator who investigated the incident filed his detailed report dated 03.05.2015. We have gone through the report as per detailed investigation report the vehicle was stolen prior to transfer of policy in the name of complainant. The vehicle was not purchased and delivered on 10.07.2014, however it was purchased and delivered on 11.07.2014 and form 29 and 30 signed on 14.07.2014 by the previous owner Khushal Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has been seeking the relief of reimbursement of claim and filed documents which are not genuine and tried to mislead this forum/commission. The repudiation letter dated 27.01.2016 is legal just and fair and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP insurance company.
21. On the basis of above observation the present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
22. 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  26.04.2024.

   SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER