Haryana

Ambala

CC/6/2021

Sanket Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandlam MS General Inss Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Himanshu Sharma

02 Nov 2022

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

                                                          Complaint case no.         :     06 of 2021

                                                          Date of Institution           :     01.01.2021

                                                          Date of decision    :     02.11.2022.

Sanket Singla son of Sh. Om Parkash Singla, resident of House No.1013, Block-11, Milap Nagar, Ambala City.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, 97, Prem Nagar, Ambala City.

Second Address:- Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Chola MS Help Health Claims Department, Shaw Wallace Building, Old No.154, New No.319, Second Floor, Thambu Chetty Street, Parrys Corner, Chennai (Tamil Nadu).

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Party

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

 

Present:       Shri Himanshu Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

(i) To pay an amount of Rs.90,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum to the complainant.

(ii) To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

(iii) To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

                             OR

Grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper as per the facts and circumstances of this case.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of the bicycle viz. SCOTT SCALE 765 (CCBL 3056) - GREY. The complainant had purchased the said bicycle for an amount Rs 90,000/- on 06.08.2020 from Biker'z Zone, Main Bazar, Gurbax Colony, Patiala (Punjab), who is an authorized dealer of Scott Bicycles. On the very same day i.e. on 06.08.2020, the complainant got his bicycle insured with the OP vide Policy No CPP12345678902610773 for a period of one year i.e. from Midnight of 07.08.2020 to Midnight of 06.08 2021 on making premium of Rs.2,515/-. On 22.09.2020, the complainant went on the said bicycle to a Chemist Shop - Rajiv Medicos, Manav Chowk, Ambala City. He parked his bicycle outside the shop after locking it and went inside the shop to buy some medicine. After a while, when the complainant came out of the shop, the said bicycle was found missing from the spot. The complainant did all his endeavours to find his bicycle but all in vain. The complainant, thereafter, on the same day contacted the OP on its Helpline No.9389938938 from his Mobile No.8053855088 and intimated about the theft of the bicycle and disclosed the whole incident. He answered all the queries put forth by the OP and it assured him not to worry and that he would be contacted by an investigator. On the next day i.e. on 23.09.2020 the complainant reported the incident to the Police at Police Post No.5, Police Station Ambala City and the Police lodged a DDR vide DDR No.17 dated 23.09.2020 regarding the theft of the bicycle, which was later on converted to FIR No.847 dated 21.11.2020 under section 379 IPC, Police Station Ambala City. Thereafter the investigator appointed by the OP contacted the complainant on 28.09.2020 and asked for relevant documents which includes insurance, DDR, Bill etc. and the investigator assured that the claim of complainant is being processed and sought a week's time to investigate the claim. After waiting for a week, the complainant asked from the investigator about the status of the claim process, upon which the investigator told the complainant that his claim is under process. On 07.10.2020 the complainant was astonished after he received an e-mail from the OP wherein it informed that his claim has been rejected. The complainant on the same day replied to the email sent by the OP and asked as to why it has refused the claim. On 08.10.2020 the OP replied through e-mail that the insurer has rejected the claim as the loss was not established'. After following up the matter again, the OP asked the complainant to provide the CCTV footage/supporting documents in support of his statement. The complainant on the same day replied through e-mail that he did not take his mobile phone with him while cycling on 22.09.2020 and that is the only reason why the location of his mobile phone was not matching with the place of theft. The opposite party on 13.10.2020 sent an e-mail to the complainant and asked for 24-48 hours to investigate more on his claim. On 15.10.2020 the complainant again asked about the update, to which the OP replied that it has forwarded the number to the insurer and again asked for the CCTV footage/supporting documents. But the complainant showed his inability to provide the same as it is not complainant's work to investigate and provide the evidence. However, except bald commitments, claim of the complainant was not settled by the OP, various emails followed by legal notices dated 25.11.2020 and 09.12.2020 were also sent to the OP in the matter but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action and concealed the true and material facts etc. On merits, while admitting factual matrix of the case regarding issuance of the policy in question in respect of the bicycle in question, it has been stated that the parties are bound to follow the terms & conditions of the policy in question. The complainant informed the Insurance Company regarding theft of his Cycle which took place on 22.09.2020. Immediately on receipt of claim intimation, the OP appointed investigator Mr. Shubham Arora to carry out the relevant facts of the investigation. On scrutiny of the claim file & investigation report, it was observed that loss of vehicle is not established by proper evidence. As per the available records, the bicycle was reportedly stolen when it was parked nearby Rajiv Medicose shop wherein the complainant went for purchase of medicines. Mr. Shubham Arora has asked for CCTV footage, medical bills in support of purchase of medicines & other supporting evidence in respect of the alleged theft of bicycle; but the complainant failed to provide the same to the Investigator. Every person normally carry phone but on going through the mobile record of the complainant, it was found by the Investigator that the complainant was not in the medical shop at the time of occurrence of theft. Information was also sought by the Investigator under RTI & the Public Information Officer vide letter dated 13.11.2020 addressed to Mr. Shubham Arora stated that after investigation by the Police, on seeing CCTV footage at Manav Chowk, Ambala City, no person was seen in the footage stealing the bicycle of the complainant. The OP took decision in accordance with mandatory terms and condition of Insurance Policy & thus rightly, legally & validly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-24 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Shri Abhishek Nigam, Legal Claims # Chola MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, Plot No.39, Karol Bagh, Opposite Metro Pillar No.120, New Delhi and affidavit of Shri Shubham Arora, Insurance Claims Investigator, House No.3548/1, Timber Market, Ambala Cantt.  as Annexure OP-A and OP-B alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-25 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that since the bicycle in question, theft whereof took place was insured under the policy in question, the OP was legally bound to pay the insured declared value of the same, yet, his genuine claim has been repudiated by the OP of flimsy grounds, which act amounts to deficiency in providing service. 
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP submitted that because the complainant has miserably failed to establish the loss of the bicycle in question and also at the same time, from the information obtained under the RTI from the Police Station concerned, it has been proved that no such incident of theft took place, as was evident from the CCTV footage of the area where the complainant claims of occurrence of the theft, as such, his claim was rightly rejected by the OP.
8.           Since in the present case, neither issuance of the policy in question in favour of the complainant, in respect of the bicycle in question; nor payment of premium by the complainant; nor lodging of FIR; nor intimation of the said accident to the OP nor submission of claim by the complainant in respect of the said bicycle are in dispute, as such, the only question which needs to be decided by this Commission is as to whether, the  complainant has been able to prove theft of his bicycle or not? The complainant in his complaint has specifically stated that on 22.09.2020, he went on the said bicycle to a Chemist Shop - Rajiv Medicos, Manav Chowk, Ambala City’; he parked it outside the said shop; locked the bicycle and went inside the shop to buy some medicine, and, when he came out of the shop, the said bicycle was missing from the spot. It may be stated here that the OP has placed on record the letter dated 13.11.2020, Annexure OP-4 having been issued by the Police Headquarter, Ambala, in favour of the Investigator of the OP, under the RTI Act, 2005, whereby, it has informed that as per the report of the Incharge of Police Chowki No.05, Police Station Ambala City, after checking the CCTV Cameras installed near the spot where the complainant claims regarding theft of the said bicycle, no person was ever seen parking the said bicycle or taking away the same. Thus, from the contents of the said letter, it is quite clear that no bicycle was stolen from the packing area of the aforesaid chemist shop. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to place on record even a single evidence to challenge the said report made by the Police Officer concerned. At the same time, the OP while placing reliance on the google location of mobile phone of the complainant, Annexure OP-8 to OP-22 has taken a specific plea in its written version to the effect that even the complainant never visited the said medicine shop, yet, except saying that he did not carry his phone to the said shop, the complainant has failed to place on record any evidence to prove that he actually visited the said chemist shop while riding on his bicycle. He could have produced on record the bill against which he allegedly purchased medicines from the said shop but he miserably failed to do so. In these circumstances, this Commission is left with no alternative than to hold that the complainant has failed to establish his case that his bicycle has actually been stolen.  The OP thus cannot be said to be wrong in repudiating his claim holding that loss of bicycle is not established by sufficient evidence.
9.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced on: 02.11.2022.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President