ORDER

11.06.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. Brief facts of the present case are that complainant booked a comprehensive insurance policy for E Rickshaw vide insurance policy no.1-8VTE9WY on 04.11.2016 and paid Rs.4763.16. It is stated that insurance policy valid for period 05.11.2016 to 04.11.2017. It is further stated that on 20.05.2017 complainant went to Rohini Court on his e rickshaw and unidentified person committed theft between 10 to 12.30 Hrs. It is stated that complainant called to police at 100 no. at 17.18 Hrs. and FIR registered having no. 015381 PS Prashant Vihar, Outer Distt. on 21.05.2017.
2. It is stated that complainant searched e rickshaw desperately and visited police station repeatedly and enquired about the status of  investigation. It is stated that police filed untraced final report and concerned court passed the order on 03.07.2017 and complainant received the copy of order passed by Ld. Sh. Manish Khurrana ACMM 01 North Dist. Rohini Courts. It is further stated that complainant intimated the OP on 26.07.2017 about the incident at the earliest possible opportunity as an illiterate person. It is stated that complainant was not aware about the process of claiming insurance although intimated through his dealer/insurance agent immediately without any deliberate or intentional delay on his part.
3. It is stated that complainant requested for fulfilling the essential requirement in order to process the theft claim and subsequently fulfilled all the essential requirements. It is further stated that complainant fully corporated with surveyor. It is stated that complainant was shocked to receive letter stating that alleged delay of 90 days in intimation to insurer and OP also threatened to repudiate the theft claim. It is stated that complainant personally visited OP office and gave clarifications that on 26.05.2016 theft was  informed through landline number 011-45787300 and requested to process the theft claim immediately. It is stated that complainant suffered a lot by unfair trade practice of OP. The OP is careless and irresponsible. It is further stated that complainant faced physical and mental harassment.
4. The complainant is seeking the direction against OP to pay Rs.1,25,999/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till the date of realization, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony, physical harassment, monitary loss and conveyance etc. and to pay Rs.11,000/- litigation cost and expenses.
5. OP1 filed WS and taken preliminary objection that present complaint is false frivolous vexatious, baseless and liable to be dismissed. It is stated that OP1 is a dealer engaged in business of selling e rickshaw through various  showrooms located in Delhi NCR. It is further stated that e rickshaw Model No.01184 Chasis No.M1DDVRKAGGC771084 was purchased by complainant on 04.11.2017 and thereafter never approached OP1 for any  claim relating to quality, performance etc of the said commercial vehicle. It is stated that complainant has falsely alleged unfair trade practice by deliberately concealing material facts, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. It is stated that OP1 has no interest in the alleged insurance claim which is apparent from the facts that OP1 and OP3 are totally engaged in different kinds of businesses and have no connection with each other. It is stated that present complaint is filed to harass the OP1 and extract money and there is no cause of action, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections reiterated.
8. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP1 and denied all the allegations made and reiterated contents of complaint.
9. OP3 filed WS and taken preliminary objections that the information of theft was given to OP3 belatedly without there being explanation although theft occurred  on 20.05.2017 whereas intimation was given on 25.08.2017 and violated the condition no.1 of the insurance policy. The OP referred to the judgment of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chaddha Civil Appeal No.6739 of 2010 decided on 17.08.2010. It is further stated that by deliberately delaying the notice to the respondent the complainant has prejudice there interest as they have been precluded from making an immediate investigation into the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, complainant has no right to set up a legal claim under the policy and the complaint merits to be rejected.
10. It is stated that complainant has failed to provide the one key of the vehicle despite repeated reminders as according to the claimants statement it was with the financer but  the same has not been made available to the insurance company. It is further stated that the complainant was found driving the vehicle without valid driving license on the date of alleged theft. It is stated that the statute and policy requires vehicle to be driven by a person holding valid and effective license and  in the present case the complainant had learner license which got expired on 26.03.2017 and on the date of alleged theft he was plying the vehicle without driving license and violated the clauses of the policy. It is stated that complainant also violated the condition no.8 of the policy, therefore, claim was rejected vide letter dated 19.09.2017.
11. On merit all the allegations are denied by OP3 and contents of preliminary objections reiterated.
12. It is stated that intimation to company was delayed, however the complainant has cleverly opted to disclose wrong date of intimation in its complaint and the documents shows that the date of intimation to the company mentioned in the reply. It is stated that complainant  supplied the documents to the investigator in peace meal manner. It is further stated that claim of the complainant rejected firstly on the ground that on the date of alleged theft he was not having valid  driving license, delay intimation of alleged theft to insurance company  without plausible explanation and non submission of second key despite repeated requests. It  is stated that act of complainant falls within the definition of gross negligence. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
13. As per record no rejoinder filed by complainant to the WS of OP2 insurance company.
14. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit. In the affidavit reiterated contents of complaint. The complainant has not exhibited any document filed on record.
15. OP insurance company filed  evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar Chaddha Vice President Legal and reiterated contents of WS.
16. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as OP insurance company. As per record no written arguments filed by OP1.
17. We have heard Sh. Shashank Rai counsel for complainant and Sh. Rajesh Kumar proxy for Sh. Dwapayan Gupta counsel for OP and perused the record.
18. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant is the owner of e rickshaw DL 8ER 1102 and taken policy of OP on 04.11.2016 and paid Rs.4763.16 and insurance policy was valid from 05.11.2016 to 04.11.2017. As per complainant on 20.05.2017 the e rickshaw was stolen at around Rohini courts and he lodged FIR with police station Prashant Vihar on 21.05.2017 having no.015381. The police filed final untraced report and Ld. Manish Khurrana ACMM 01 North District Rohini passed order on 03.07.2017.  A claim was lodged with the OP which was repudiated vide letter dated 23.08.2017. The OP received the  information of theft admittedly by complainant on 26.07.2017 although theft was taken place on 20.05.2017. Complainant admitted that there is a delay of sixty days. The OP insurance company appointed Aaybee Associates and Consultants as investigator. The investigator submitted detailed report dated 12.09.2017. We have gone through the detail investigation report. As per investigation report complainant had produced only one used ignition key and regarding second ignition key insured stated that it is in the custody of financer. The investigation report further mentioned that on the day of incident complainant was not holding a valid driving license, the learning license had already been expired. The photocopy of learner DL filed on record by complainant which is valid upto 26.03.2017 and he was driving the e rickshaw on the day of incident i.e 20.05.2017. Admittedly it was not valid. The complainant was not having driving license on the day of theft.
19. The OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that there is a sixty days delay in giving the information to the OP insurance company with  regard to incident of theft. The complainant  has not given sufficient plausible explanation for delay of sixty days the ground mentioned that he is a illiterate person is not sufficient because he immediately approached the police than he can able to approach the OP insurance company. We found that there is no satisfactory explanation given for sixty days delay. Admittedly it is proved that on the day of incident complainant was not holding valid driving license and he was not able to submit the second key of the e rickshaw with the insurance company. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. We are of considered view that repudiation letter dated 23.08.2017 is legal fair just and complainant breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, not entitled to claim.
20. On the basis  of above observation and discussion present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
21. 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  11.06.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                                                           NIPUR CHANDNA                 

       PRESIDENT                                                                        MEMBER