( Passed on dated 30^th  July, 2015 )

Per Shri Atul D. Alsi – Hon’ble President.

              The complainant purchases the vehicle for his self employment and livelihood.  The O.P. No.1 resides at Gondia and running business of selling vehicle of TATA Motor Company and O.P.No.2 is a finance company.   O.P.No.3 is an insurance company.  

2.            The complainant had purchased the new vehicle TATA 207 DI RX PICKUP Tata Company Chasis No. MAT 478012C9B09833,  Engine No. 497SP38BXY614856, Tmp No. – MH 40 – TCD – 07 on finance of Tata motors finance Ltd., Nagpur from Nangia Motors, branch Gondia and it is been delivered to complainant on dated 19/06/2012 against the cash payment of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.22,587/- in the name of the complainant.

3.            The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on dated 21/08/2012 , Rs.13,500/- on dated 25/08/2012 and Rs.1,500/- on dated 31/08/2012 i.e. total Rs.25,000/- as per the instruction of Rajpalji Sardar r/o. Gondia to the OP.No.2.  The complainant returned from Amrutsar (Punjab) on 06/10/2012 then family member told that, “on dated 03/10/2012 three persons came and demanded installment of vehicle immediately”. The complainant’s son and family members were unable to pay huge amount in absence of complainant, then they had given threat to murder son of complainant and forcefully obtain key and seized vehicle against the sizing receipt on behalf of O.P.No.2.

4.            On very next day on dated 07/10/2012 complainant approached office of Nangiya Motors Gondia (O.P.No.1) for collecting information of said sized vehicle but they totally refuse the story of sizing vehicle by Tata Finance Company the O. P. No. 2.   The complainant went Nagpur main branch for obtaining a letter from Tata Motors Finance Ltd. (O.P.No.2).  Complainant obtains NON REPOSSETION OF VEHICLE letter on dated 16/10/2012 from O.P.No.2 and the necessary document from the O.P.No.1 after several repetition and demand on dated 25/10/2012.  After that, police received written complaint against accused on dated 27/10/2012.   Police Station, Amgaon registered report i.e. F.I.R. after investigation of complainant’s complaint dated 27/10/2012 against the three unknown person vide F.I.R.No. 50/2013 under the section 420, 34 of I.P.C.  That the Amgaon police station has submitted final report in the Court on 18/02/2014.

5.            The complainant presented the claim of said vehicle before the O. P. No.3 with all necessary documents.  The ICICI Lombard Insurance Company (O. P. No.3) rejected the claim by repudiation letter on dated 02/01/2014.  The complainant several times requested for the R.T.O. clearance and R.C.Book but to the O.P.No.1, but they did not notice and continuation tolerance and also not handover the original documents to complainant.   The O. P. No.2 continually demanding money of loan amount through his agents.  The O. P. No.2 wants to size and sale complainant’s property towards loan account.   Now the said vehicle is not in possession of complainant from 03/10/2012 to till today, the complainant suffering from huge financial and mental loss.  The O. P. No.3 is liable to pay whole claim amount to the complainant.

6.            Therefore, the complainant prays to direct the O. P. to pay the claim of Rs.5,21,431/- under the comprehensive policy with interest there on  @ 15% p.a. from the date of incident. The O. P. to pay  Rs.25,000/- for compensation for deficiency of service on the part of O. P. and also the O. P. to pay loss of Rs.20,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony.

7.            The O. P. No. 1 had refused to receive the notice issued by this Forum and in spite of receiving notice O. P. No.2 did not appeared before the Forum hence they proceeded Ex-parte.  The O. P. No.3 is appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement before the forum. 

8.            In their reply, the O. P. No. 3 submits that, the complainant is making contradictory story of theft of his vehicle on the one hand by alleging that some persons claiming to be employed of O. P. Nos. 1 & 2 forcefully taken the keys of the said vehicle from the son and other family members and on the other hand he alleged that on affidavit dated 27/09/2013 that he had parked the said vehicle in front of his house and both the original keys were attached to the ignition point of the vehicle and has been stolen along with the vehicle.  The son of the complainant has also made similar statement before O. P. No.3.  The complainant is either a culprit behind back the story of the theft or deliberately hiding the true story from this honorable forum in order to grab compensation from the O. P. No.3 illegally.  The O. P. No.3 by mentioning latches on the part of the complainant the delay of 186 days in giving report to the police and delay of 345 days in intimating the claim to insurance company.  It was further pointed out the negligence of the complainant that he left both the original keys of the vehicle inside the vehicle and failed to take sufficient care of his own vehicle.  Therefore, the O. P. No.3 vide letter dated 02/01/2014 repudiated the claim complainant rightly.

9.            The complainant has filed concerned documents at page no. 12 to 40 on record.

10.                   The learned counsel for complainant Mr. A. S. Shrivastava           has filed written notes of argument and submitted that, on dated 07/10/2012 complainant approached office of Nangiya Motors Gondia (O. P. No.1) for collecting information of said sized vehicle but they totally refuse the story of sizing.  The complainant obtains NON REPOSSETION OF VEHICLE letter.   The O. P. No.1 also not handover the original documents to the complainant.   After obtain all documents complainant had gone police station, Amgaon again for lodge report but police not registered his complaint due to reason of election duty, therefore complainant gave written complaint against unknown accused on dated 27/10/2012 to the police station, Amgaon and Superintendent of Police, Gondia and others.

11.                   Thereafter the police station, Amgaon registered report i.e. F.I.R. after investigation of complainant’s written complaint dated 27/10/2012 against the three unknown persons on dated 07/04/2013 vide F.I.R. NO. 50/2013 U/sec. 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code.  Amgaon police station has submitted final report in the Court on 18/02/2014.  The ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. (O. P. No.3) rejected the claim by repudiation letter on dated 02/01/2014 on baseless reasons.   The O. P. No.3 is issued comprehensive policy against the huge premium.  Opposite parties liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant therefore, the complainant has filed this case for compensation.

12.                   The learned counsel for O. P. No.3 Mr. C. J. Gajbhiye argued that, the complainant has prepared false and concocted story to make false insurance claim to grab amount from O. P. No. 3.  As per the insurance policy condition there is breach of condition committed by the complainant for informing the correct information and details of claim.  Secondly, there is inordinate delay in lodging the claim with the O. P. No.3 as the complainant was trying to hide the truth.  He has submitted present complaint on different story of theft, which itself demonstrate the falsehood of the complainant.   As per the policy condition the information of theft is to be informed to company immediately however, the complainant informed on dated 13/09/2013 i.e. after 345 days from the date of alleged loss of the vehicle.  The complainant is also negligent in taking proper care of his vehicle that he has kept both the original keys to the ignition point and left the vehicle.  Therefore, there is gross negligence on the part of complainant to take safety measures from theft.   

              Thus, there is no deficiency in the service on the part of O. P. No.3 and the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is just, proper and legal. 

13.                   Considering the rival contention of the party & submission made before us the following points arise for consideration & finding there on along with reasons.

REASONING & FINDINGS

14.                    The complainant had purchased the new vehicle TATA 207 DI RX PICKUP TATA company chassis no. MAT478012C9B 09833, engine No. 497SP38BXY614856 Tmp. No. MH-40/TCD-07 on  finance of TATA Motors O.P.No.2 from TATA Motors O.P.No.1  The vehicle was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. O.P.No.3 vide police No. 3003/TM866019/00/000 for the period from 30/05/2012 to 29/05/2013 under compressive policy against a premium of Rs.22,587/-. This fact is proved.  Contents are admitted by O.P.No.3 in reply and insurance policy filed on record as per document No.15.

15.                   The vehicle was delivered to complainant on 19/06/2012.  On 03/10/2012 some unknown person had taken back the vehicle saying that for non-payment the amount of installments the vehicle had been seized by financer.  The fact came to know to complainant after coming back from “Satsang” at Amrutsar with other persons of his area as per evidence on affidavit file by Police Patil Suresh Kore of Amgaon, Dist. Gondia.  The police first refuse to register the offence.  After receiving non-possession letter from finance company the P. S. Amgaon registered offence vide Crime No. 50/2013, U/s. 420 R/w. 34 of I.P.C.  Instead of U/s. 379 of I.P.C. as per document filed on record at Page No. 25 on 27/10/2012.

16.                   So, the reason behind delay in registration of F.I.R. at police station is bonafide and hence there is no delay on the part of complainant in registration of F.I.R. in police station.  To register the offence under Police Station is not in the hand of complainant and now a days that depend upon vim’s of Police Officer.   To register the offence at police station under theft of vehicle is not so casual.  The attitude of police machinery is avoidance to register the offence in respect of theft.  On the other hand the complainant has intimated the incident of theft when he revealed the fact that the theft was committed is not intentionally delay in giving intimation to insurance company & filing complaint in police station.

17.                   The O. P. No. 2 finance company fails to provide necessary original documents to the complainant and that prevents complainant to register his vehicle for permanent registration for which the complainant has to suffer financial loss and mental torture.  On the other hand there is no evidence on record that the original documents were handed over to complainant.  Hence the contention of complainant for non-receipt of original documents is accepted.

18.                   After submission of Insurance claim with all documents the O. P. No.3 ought to have consider the fact and situation of case and ought to have decide the claim and the shortcoming and minor things shall not affect the claim to be decided on merit.  This is a fit claim to be decided  on Non-Standard basis.  Hence direction is given to O. P. No. 3 to pay 75% amount without any cost and compensation to complainant.  Hence, direction is given to O. P. No.2 to sanction the amount of 75% out of total Insurance claim of Rs.5,21,431/- as per sum assured as per Insurance policy to complainant excluding the interest, cost and compensation.      

              Hence, the following order is passed.

-: ORDER :-

1.            The O. P. No.3 is directed to settle the insurance claim on Non-Standard Basis by paying 75% of claim out of sum assured Rs.5,21,431/- as per policy and pay to the complainant.

2.            No order as to interest, cost and compensation is passed.

3.            No order is passed against O. P. Nos. 1 & 2.

4.            The O. P. No. 3 is directed to settle the claim of complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.