PER:
Charanjit Singh, President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant Angrej Singh is registered owner of a vehicle i.e. Hero Splendor Motorcycle having registration No. PB46-AE-1706, Engine No. HA10AGKHL00732 chassis No. MBHLAW094KHL00422 and the said motorcycle was purchased by the complainant on 14.12.2019. The complainant got insured his above said vehicle from the opposite party w.e.f. 11.12.2019 up to 10.12.2024 under registered policy certificate No. 2312910011494800000 after paying the premium of insurance policy to the tune of Rs. 4,839/-. The complainant paid the premium of the above said insurance policy to the opposite party to get insured his above said vehicle from opposite party and as such he is beneficiary of the services provided by the opposite party and hence the complainant is consumer of opposite party. On 5.4.2021, the complainant went to Block Pajaria Market, B Block Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar on his own motorcycle and standing the vehicle outside the market and at about 2.00 P.M. After meeting his friend and he came back from his place and he saw that the said vehicle has been stolen from the spot by unknown person and the vehicle has not been traced out so far despite the best efforts on the part of the complainant. Moreover, the FIR No. 101 dated 5.4.2021 under section 379 IPC has also been lodged by the police of P.S. Ranjit Avenue Amritsar to this effect on the statement of Lovejit Singh son of sukhdev Singh resident of village Kot Dharam Singh Kalan, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran. In the meanwhile, complainant approached the opposite party with the request to disburse the whole amount of sum assured to the insured as per the insurance policy but the opposite party is not putting ears to the requests of the complainant as it has not disbursed the claim amount without assigning any reason nor repudiating the same. The complainant has never violated any term or condition of the insurance policy. If there is any objection on the part of the insurance policy regarding the repudiation of the insurance claim, even then the same was never explained/ supplied to the complainant at the time of inception of the policy and the insurance claim cannot be repudiated on the ground of alleged term and condition and if there is any alleged clause in the policy even then the same is explained and is not bound upon the insured/ complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party for settlement of the claim but the opposite party is not interested for settlement of the claim and they are finding way to decline the insurance claim of the complainant on one false pretext or the other. The incident of theft of the said vehicle of the complainant took place during the operation of the insurance policy and as such, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim. The complainant has prayed the following relieves:-
- The opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the whole sum assured amount to the complainant.
- The opposite party further be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of R.C. Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of insurance policy Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of Police report Ex. D-4, self attested copy of Pollution certificate Ex. C-5, Self attested copy of Tax Invoice Ex. C-6, Self attested copy of sale certificate form No. 21 Ex. C-7.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is legally not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the cause of loss is outside the duration of the policy. The policy which was issued to the complainant was two wheeler policy- Bundled which had one year of OD coverage and 5 years of TP cover having policy number 2312910011494800000. The OD period was valid from 11.12.2019 to 10.12.2020 and the insured vehicle was allegedly stolen on 5.4.2021 which is outside the terms of policy. Moreover the complainant did not renew the OD cover with opposite party, therefore, the present complaint is legally not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. The policy as annexed by the complainant himself alongwith the policy clearly mentions that the OD cover is valid/ effective from 11th December, 2019 till 12th December 2020 whereas as per the averments made in the complaint, the insured vehicle was allegedly stolen on 5.4.2021 which is after the expiry of the OD coverage. The complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from the notice of this commission. Both the parties are bound with the terms and conditions of the policy and in this case the date of loss as alleged by the complainant is falling outside the period of insurance and hence, the complainant is not entitled to any kind of relief from the opposite party. Without prejudice to the above submission, the opposite party would like to submit that both the parties are bound with the terms and conditions of the policy and in this case the complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy.
“The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of:- the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damages and to maintain it in efficient conditions and the company shall have all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee for the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk”
As such there was gross negligence on the part of the complainant, as he has left his vehicle unattended, not parked at proper government authorized parking place. The terms and conditions of the policy were duly supplied to the complainant at the time of issuance of policy. The complainant never complained regarding non supply of terms and conditions. The policy was issued to the complainant on 11.12.2019 and the claim in dispute has arisen in 2021. Since the inception of policy, the complainant never raised any grievance with the respondent regarding the non-receipt of terms and conditions of the policy, now the complainant has denied regarding receiving the terms and conditions which proves that the said allegations is an afterthought and has been made just to take undue benefits. The present complaint has been filed without any cause of action against the opposite party, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The policy was issued to the complainant having policy Number 2312910011494800000 was Two Wheeler Policy- Bundled which had one year of OD coverage and 5 years of TP cover. The OD period was valid from 11.12.2019 to 10.12.2020 and TP cover was valid from 11.12.2019 to 10.12.2024. The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Shweta Pokhriyal, Manager claims Legal Ex. OP-1, self attested copy of Power of attorney/Authority letter Ex. OP-2, Self attested copy of Policy Ex. OP-3, Self attested copy of terms and conditions Ex. OP-4.
3 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party and have carefully gone through the documents and written arguments placed on the file.
4 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant Angrej Singh is registered owner of a vehicle i.e. Hero Splendor Motorcycle having registration No. PB46-AE-1706, Engine No. HA10AGKHL00732 chassis No. MBHLAW094KHL00422 and the said motorcycle was purchased by the complainant on 14.12.2019. He further contended that the complainant got insured his above said vehicle from the opposite party w.e.f. 11.12.2019 up to 10.12.2024 under registered policy certificate No. 2312910011494800000 after paying the premium of insurance policy to the tune of Rs. 4,839/-. The complainant paid the premium of the above said insurance policy to the opposite party to get insured his above said vehicle from opposite party and as such he is beneficiary of the services provided by the opposite party and hence the complainant is consumer of opposite party. He further contended that on 5.4.2021, the complainant went to Block Pajaria Market, B Block Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar on his own motorcycle and standing the vehicle outside the market and at about 2.00 P.M. after meeting his friend he came back from his place and he saw that the said vehicle has been stolen by some unknown person and the vehicle has not been traced out so far despite the best efforts on the part of the complainant. He further contended that the FIR No. 101 dated 5.4.2021 under section 379 IPC has also been lodged by the police of P.S. Ranjit Avenue Amritsar to this effect on the statement of Lovejit Singh son of Sukhdev Singh resident of village Kot Dharam Singh Kalan, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran. In the meanwhile, complainant approached the opposite party with the request to disburse the whole amount of sum assured to the insured as per the insurance policy but the opposite party is not putting ears to the requests of the complainant as he has not disbursed the claim amount without assigning any reason nor repudiating the same. The complainant has never violated any term or condition of the insurance policy. If there is any objection on the part of the insurance policy regarding the repudiation of the insurance claim, even then the same was never explained/ supplied to the complainant at the time of inception of the policy and the insurance claim cannot be repudiated on the ground of alleged term and condition and if there is any alleged clause in the policy even then the same is explained and is not bound upon the insured/ complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party for settlement of the claim but the opposite party is not interested for settlement of the claim and they are finding way to decline the insurance claim of the complainant on one false pretext or the other. The incident of theft of the said vehicle of the complainant took place during the operation of the insurance policy and as such, the complainant is entitled to insurance claim and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
5 On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party contended that the present complaint is legally not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the cause of loss is outside the duration of the policy. The policy which was issued to the complainant was two wheeler policy- Bundled which had one year of OD coverage and 5 years of TP cover having policy number 2312910011494800000. The OD period was valid from 11.12.2019 to 10.12.2020 and the insured vehicle was allegedly stolen on 5.4.2021 which is outside the terms of policy. Moreover the complainant did not renew the OD cover with opposite party, therefore, the present complaint is legally not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. The policy as annexed by the complainant himself alongwith the policy clearly mentions that the OD cover is valid/ effective from 11th December, 2019 till 12th December 2020 whereas as per the averments made in the complaint, the insured vehicle was allegedly stolen on 5.4.2021 which is after the expiry of the OD coverage. He further contended that both the parties are bound with the terms and conditions of the policy and in this case the date of loss as alleged by the complainant is falling outside the period of insurance and hence, the complainant is not entitled to any kind of relief from the opposite party. Without prejudice to the above submission, the opposite party would like to submit that both the parties are bound with the terms and conditions of the policy and in this case the complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy.
“The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of:- the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damages and to maintain it in efficient conditions and the company shall have all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee for the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk”
He further contended that there was gross negligence on the part of the complainant, as he has left his vehicle unattended, not parked at proper government authorized parking place. The terms and conditions of the policy were duly supplied to the complainant at the time of issuance of policy. The complainant never complained regarding non supply of terms and conditions. The policy was issued to the complainant on 11.12.2019 and the claim in dispute has arisen in 2021. He further contended that since the inception of policy, the complainant never raised any grievance with the respondent regarding the non-receipt of terms and conditions of the policy, now the complainant has denied regarding receiving the terms and conditions which proves that the said allegations is an afterthought and has been made just to take undue benefits. The present complaint has been filed without any cause of action against the opposite party, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
6 We have carefully gone through the rival contention of counsels for the parties.
7 In the present case, the complainant has placed on record insurance policy Ex. C-3 which shows that OD (own Damage) period of the vehicle in question is effective from 11.12.2019 to 10.12.2020 and TP (Third Party) period of the vehicle in question is from 11.12.2019 to 10.12.2024. As such as per policy produced by the complainant itself shows that the vehicle in question was insured for own damage w.e.f. 11.12.2019 to 10.12.2020 and as per case of the complainant, the vehicle in question was stolen on 5.4.2021 and vehicle in question is not covered under the policy Ex. C-3 under own damage. However, as per insurance policy Ex. C-3, TP (Third Party) the theft of the vehicle in question is not covered. Both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy have to be strictly construed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India vs. Garg Sons International 2013 (1) SCALE 410 (SC) held in Para Nos.8 to 11 as under:
“8. It is a settled legal proposition that while construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled, that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the Court should always be to interpret the words used in the contract in the manner that will best express the intention of the parties. (Vide: M/s. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 567).
9. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly, without altering the nature of the contract as the same may affect the interests of the parties adversely. The clauses of an insurance policy have to be read as they are consequently, the terms of the insurance policy, that fix the responsibility of the Insurance Company must also be read strictly. The contract must be read as a whole and every attempt should be made to harmonize the terms thereof, keeping in mind that the rule of contra proferentem does not apply in case of commercial contract, for the reason that a clause in a commercial contract is bilateral and has mutually been agreed upon. (Vide : Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan AIR 1999 SC 3252; Polymat India P. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 286; M/s. Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Oil & Natural Gas Company, AIR 2010 SC 3400; and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. M/s. Dewan Chand Ram Saran AIR 2012 SC 2829).
10. In Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 2493, it was held: “An insurance contract, is a species of commercial transactions and must be construed like any other contract to its own terms and by itself. The endeavour of the court must always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties. The court while construing the terms of policy is not expected to venture into extra liberalism that may result in rewriting the contract or substituting the terms which were not intended by the parties. (See also: Sikka Papers Limited v. National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2834).”
11. Thus, it is not permissible for the court to substitute the terms of the contract itself, under the garb of construing terms incorporated in the agreement of insurance. No exceptions can be made on the ground of equity. The liberal attitude adopted by the court, by way of which it interferes in the terms of an insurance agreement, is not permitted. The same must certainly not be extended to the extent of substituting words that were never intended to form a part of the agreement.”
8 While repudiating the claim of the complainant the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the claim has been validly repudiated by the opposite party.
9 In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission
24.04.2024
