ORDER

01.07.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant was the owner of a white colour Hyundai Verna bearing registration no. DL 8C AA  4869. It is stated that complainant was very particular about maintaining his vehicle in efficient condition and used to regularly get his vehicle services from the authorized dealer, from time to time. Copy of various vehicle repair history record dated 11.11.2016, 07.12.2015 and 14.09.2014 are filed on record. It is stated that the above mentioned annexures are only few of the many service records and its shows that the complainant was not only particular but was considerate and responsible towards the maintaining the efficient condition of his vehicle throughout the time complainant was in possession of the same i.e about 5 years.
2. It is stated that upon expiry of previous motor insurance in the year 2016, on 16.06.2016 upon representations and tele calls received on behalf of OP1 and 2 offering best premium and service, the complainant opted to insure his vehicle by the OP1, therefore, the complainant purchased the Motor Secure Insurance Policy from OP1 on the said date and in furtherance of the same was issued policy no.2016-V4521161-FPV. It is further stated on 08.12.2016 both the keys of the vehicle of the complainant had been misplaced by the complainant within home premises, as marriage preparations of the complainant were going on, which was scheduled to be solemnized on 10.12.2016. Since, the keys were misplaced,  the complainant initially approached the authorized service center, i.e M/s Himgiri Hyundair, Wazirpur  Industrial Area, New Delhi to get  the engine   ignition code changed. The said dealer informed the complainant that he will have to send his vehicle to the service station and also that complainant will have to wait for 5-6 days, atleast, before the said changes/replacements can be made in the vehicle as the components required were not available with them at that moment and the said components will have to be called from Hyundai Factory at Chennai. Since, the marriage preparations were already underway, the complainant could not afford to wait for 5-6 days. Hence, left with no choice complainant approached an outside vendor to get the said changes done.
3. It is stated that the marriage preparation of the complainant were underway, the only logical and prudent solution left before the complainant was to get the duplicate keys and the code of the said vehicle, changed/replaced from an outside vendor for the sake of the safety and security of his car. It is further stated that complainant acted as per his prudence in the situation at hand. It is stated that the “Engine Ignition Code” is programmed into the keys of the vehicle, which is read and recognized when the key is inserted in the ignition. In case the code is not recorgnized, the engine does not start and also the engine immobilizes completely, rendering the vehicle completely immobile. Therefore, as mentioned above, getting the code changed by the complainant was not only an ample precautionary step on his behalf but also a reasonable step taken as per the prudence of the complainant in order to safeguard the vehicle from any kind of loss or damage or theft in the future, as not only will it make the original keys useless, it found by any one, but in case anyone tried to use them will make the said vehicle immobile.
4. It is stated that on 18.03.2017 the vehicle of the complainant was stolen from Rohini, Sector-11 Area. In regards, to the same, FIR no. 8187/2017 was registered at Prashant Vihar Police Station by the complainant,  himself. It is further stated that the OP1 was intimated about the incident on the same day, via a telephonic communication and further, the complainant requested the tele-calling executive of the OP1 to initiate the insurance claim process against the said policy no. Hence the claim process  was initiated vide claim no. CV781262 and it was stated that the claim will be processed within 6 weeks subject to submission of insurance policy. The said documents were duly submitted by complainant to the OP at the earliest, without any delay. It is further stated that on 24.04.2017 an email communication was received by the complainant from the OP1, informing the complainant that his claim has been declared “NOT ADMISSIBLE” and hence, been rejected on the ground that the key submitted by the complainant was duplicate key and same stands violative of policy condition no.4. It is stated that copy of the “Claim Denial Notice” alongwith affidavit under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 filed on record.
5. It is stated that on 25.04.2017, the report dated 24.04.2017, from the court of Sh. Manish Khurana, ACMM-01 North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, declaring the vehicle of the complainant to be “Non Traceable” was received by the complainant. It is further stated that aggrieved by the denied of the claim by the OP1 on totally frivolous and unjust grounds, the complainant was left with no other choice but to seek legal remedy. In pursuance of the same, a legal notice dated 01.05.2017 was sent to the OPs on behalf of the complainant, instructing the OPs to process the claim of the complainant else necessary legal step would be taken against the OPs. The copy of legal notice filed on record. It is stated that against the said legal notice, a reply dated 15.05.2017 was received on behalf of OP1 only. In the said reply, the OP1 failed to provide any further insight as to why actually the claim was denied, or even any just reason/s for the denial of the claim was not provided. The OP1 just plainly reiterated the same grounds, as were mentioned in the email communication dated 24.04.2017 i.e the claim denial notice. It is further stated that in the absence of any specific sense the word tends to imply, the term reasonable has to be read and understood in its literal essence, which needs it to prudence of the insured, although that step must be sensible, diligent, fair and honest, in comparison to the prudence of an average man.
6. It is stated that the act of complainant were prudent and reasonable enough to ensure the safety and security of the vehicle as complainant had no option but to get the duplicate keys and ignition forged changed from an outside vendor to be able to use the vehicle and during his marriage it was to be solemnized on 10.12.2016 and related functions; while the keys were lost on 08.12.2016. It is further stated that denial of claim by OP1 is unwarranted in its totality and said claim shall not only be approved but shall be proceesed in favor of complainant.
7. Complainant is seeking direction against OP1 and 2 to process the insurance claim of complainant in terms of policy issued having no. CV781262, to direct OP1 and 2 to pay sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment, to direct the OP3 being regulatory body to frame such rules and regulation to ensure the insurance companies do not resort to unfair business practice and to award cost of litigation.
8. OP1 and 2 filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objections that complainant had lodged claim with OP1 and 2 in respect of reported theft of insured vehicle and during the process complainant was asked to supply relevant information and to cooperate with investigator in order to establish veracity of the claim. It is stated that investigator was supplied set of keys wherein keys were found duplicate and complainant took away keys from the investigator. The photocopy of  duplicate keys filed on record.
9. It is stated that complainant was sought to explain anamolies and complainant submitted that since original car keys were lost during his marriage therefore, he got the  duplicate keys prepared to use vehicle. It is further stated that the lock set despite having lose the keys was never changed and no police information was given in respect of lose original keys. The complainant mentioned date of marriage 10.12.2016, loss of key December 2016 and date of theft 18.03.2017. It is stated that complainant while supplying the fabricated key laid dishonestly and the declaration signed by the complainant makes truthful submissions as conditions precedent to any liability. It is stated that in view of declaration and submission of duplicate/fabricated keys by the complainant the entitlement to receive any claim under the policy was lost.
10. It is stated that complainant has not approached the hon’ble forum with hands and has not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss, therefore, breach the condition no.4 of the policy. It is stated that complainant violated the conditions of the  policy therefore, claim was rejected. It is further stated that despite repeated letters/reminders dated 24.04.2017, 26.05.2017 and 25.07.2017 the complainant failed to provide the original keys therefore, OP  insurance company left with no other option but to reject the claim vide letter dated 12.09.2017. The complainant also violated the condition no8 of the policy. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP1 and 2. OP referred the judgment of OIC Vs. Sony Cheryan. It is stated that the vehicle was hypothecated with Punjab National Bank as the owner of the vehicle and complainant has not impleaded Punjab National Bank as party in the present complaint which is necessary for adjudication of the present complaint.
11. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is stated that complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed in the complaint.
12. As per record complainant has not filed rejoinder to the WS of  OP1 and 2.
13. As per record no WS filed by OP3.
14. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. Complainant relied on photocopy of registration certificate of the vehicle Ex.C-1-A (colly), copy of vehicle repair history Ex.C-1-B (colly), copy of insurance policy Ex.C-1-C, copy of wedding card  Ex.C-1-D, copy of FIR Ex.C-1-E, copy of claim denial notice Ex.C-1-F, copy of non traceable report Ex.C-1-G, copy of legal notice dated 01.05.2017 Ex.C-1-H and copy of reply to legal notice Ex.C-1-I.
15. OP1 and 2 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Nitin H Tawre Sr. Executive. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated.
16. Written arguments filed on behalf of complainant.
17. We have heard Sh. Deepak Goyal counsel for  complainant and Ms. Akshita Intern for Sh. Anuj Chauhan counsel for OP and perused the record.
18. As per record OP1 and 2 proceeded ex parte vide dated 14.12.2017, thereafter OP1 and 2 approached Hon’ble State Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission imposed cost of Rs.7000/- vide order 07.02.2019. Further this commission imposed cost of Rs.3000/- the total cost imposed on OP1 and 2 was Rs.10,000/-. The WS filed by OP1 and 2 taken on record. It is further mentioned in order dated 10.07.2019 that hon’ble State Commission in RP no. 49/2017 vide order dated 03.07.2019 allowing the revision petition of complainant and directed to take of the WS filed on record by OP1 and 2. The OP1 and 2 remained ex parte and their WS and evidence filed on record in not the part of proceedings before this commission.
19. It is admitted case of the complainant that he is the owner of Hyundai Verna having registration no. DL 8CAA 4869. It is admitted by complainant that on 08.12.2016 both the keys of the vehicle misplaced  at home as his marriage preparations were going on which was scheduled for 10.12.2016. It is admitted by complainant that he had initially approached the authorized center M/s Himgiri Hyundai, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi to get a new key prepared and change the engine ignition code. It is further admitted case of the complainant that the dealer informed him that it will take five to six days and he has to sent the vehicle to service station as the components would have to be called for Hyundai Factor at Chennai. It is admitted by complainant that because of marriage preparations he could not afford to wait 5-6 days therefore approached outside vendor to get the said new keys preparation and the change of engine ignition code.
20. It is admitted by complainant that on 18.03.2017 after about four months of missing of keys of the car the vehicle was stolen from Rohini sector 11 and FIR no. 8187/2017 was registered at Prashant Vihar Police station.  The complainant lodged a claim with OP insurance company but the OP insurance company declare the claim not admissible  and rejected on 24.04.2017. In the rejection letter it is specifically stated that the keys submitted by complainant were duplicate. The making of duplicate key as per OP insurance company breached the policy condition no.4, therefore, the non submission of original keys resulted in repudiation of the claim. The complainant relied on IRDA circulated dated 20.09.2011. This circular is in regard to giving sound logic and valid ground for rejection of claims by insurance companies and ascertaining the reasons for delay  in filing the complaint. The complainant filed judgment of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum UT Chandigarh, titled as Pappu Khan Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance ltd. We have gone through this judgment it is distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case it is admitted by complainant that original keys were lost and he got issued duplicate keys. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant at no point of time lodged any complaint with the police with regard to missing of original  keys and for about three months did not take any steps to get issued original set of keys from the manufacturing company when he was free from marriage. The complainant also relied on another judgment titled as Shri Shahnawaz Rana Vs. National Insurance Co. (Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission). This judgment is distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of the case as duplicate keys were given by the previous owner. However, in the present case complainant got issued duplicate keys. The complainant further relied on judgment of Shri G.K. Basabaraju Vs. The Branch Manager M/s Royal Sunderam General Insurance Co. This judgment is distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of this case as in the present case the complainant himself got prepared duplicate keys instead of issuing the original keys.
21. On the basis of above observation and discussion 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  01.07.2024.

       SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER