Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/27

Pyara Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lomdard & Another - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. G.S.Rattu, Adv

20 Jul 2015

ORDER

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Pyara Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)  against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) for issuance of the directions to them as under:-

i)       To pay Rs.29,975/- as insured amount, 

ii)      To pay Rs.25,000/- as damages for harassment,

iii)     To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses

iv)     To pay interest on the above said amounts @ 12%

           P.A. till realization,

 

2.                 In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of the motorcycle Splendor Plus bearing registration No. PB-12-N-9127, Model 2011, which was got insured by him with the O.P. No.1 for the sum insured of Rs.29,975/-, for the period from 24.11.2013 mid night of 23.11.2014 vide insurance policy No. 3005/21111507110760/000, for which he had paid a sum of Rs.880/- as premium to the said O.P. However, on 16.03.2014, his son, namely, Gurvinder Singh along with his friend, Abhishek Jain, was coming from Anandpur Sahib to Rupnagar on the said motorcycle and when they reached near Kotla Power House, the said motor cycle met with an accident and both of them got injured and were admitted in PHC, Kiratpur Sahib, from where they were referred to Civil Hospital, Rupnagar and then to PGI, Chandigarh. From the spot of said accident, the above said motor cycle was picked up by some unidentified person. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Anandpur Sahib and FIR No. 55 dated 08.06.2014, under section 379 was lodged on his statement. He had tried his best to locate the said motor cycle, but to no use. Ultimately, he lodged claim for theft of the said motorcycle with the O.Ps. and supplied all the required documents to them, but inspite of the fact that more than 4 months period had elapsed, nothing was done by the O.Ps., who are duty bound to pay the sum insured to him along with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of theft till its realization, because as per policy conditions, the theft is covered under the policy. He had made various requests to the O.Ps., by meeting personally as well as telephonically but they had been putting off the matter on one pretext and had not paid even a single penny to him. He had also got served legal notices upon the O.Ps. through his counsel, but no reply was given by them. After service of notices, he had again requested the O.Ps. to pass his claim amount, but they had flatly refused to accede to his request. The said act of the O.Ps. amounts to deficiency in service & adoption of unfair trade practice, due to which, he has suffered mental agony, physical harassment as well as financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

 

 3.                On being put to notice, the O.Ps. filed a joint written version taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague & vexatious in nature and has been filed to injure the interest and reputation of the O.Ps.; that the complainant had violated the terms & conditions of the policy, because allegedly the motorcycle in question was stolen after the accident on 16.03.2014 and the intimation regarding the alleged theft was given to the police on 02.04.2014 i.e. with a delay of 17 days and to the O.Ps. on 26.03.2014 i.e. with a delay of 10 days, due to which the O.Ps. lost their valuable right of investigation to recover the said vehicle, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine; that the complainant is himself guilty for not taking the reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and sufficient care was not taken, which a prudent man ought to have taken, which also amounts to clear cut violation of the condition No. 4 of the policy, as such, the O.Ps. are not liable to pay any claim amount to him; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try & decide the present complaint, as the matter in dispute involves a cognizable offence; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has filed the instant complaint with the sole motive of gaining unlawfully from this Forum; that the complainant has no locus standi & cause of action to file the present complaint, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the motorcycle in question of the complainant was duly insured with the O.Ps. for the period from 24.11.2013 to 23.11.2014, subject to the terms & conditions of the policy, which was duly supplied to him at the time of the insurance. It is stated that after the accident on 16.03.2014, the motorcycle in question was allegedly stolen, however, the O.Ps. had received intimation regarding theft of the motorcycle in question, on 26.3.2014, accordingly, claim No.MOT03698077 for the same was allotted and they appointed Mr. Jatinder Dhiman, Claim Investigator, for investigating the genuineness of the loss. During investigation, it was found that the said motorcycle was stolen, but intimation to the Police was given on 2.4.2014 i.e. with a delay of 17 days and to the O.Ps. on 26.3.2014 with a delay of 10 days. Further, as per the FIR lodged by the complainant with the police, it has been specifically stated that after the accident on 16.03.2014, the vehicle remained standing in front of the shop of B.K. Electricals for 7-8 days without care. Further, after the accident, the keys remained in the ignition of the said motorcycle, which led to its theft. It was gross negligent act of the complainant to park the motorcycle unattended outside a shop, leaving the key in it, which was the fundamental cause of theft and amounts to violation of the terms & conditions of the policy. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as per the terms & conditions of the policy, he is not entitled to get any claim amount and intimation regarding the same was duly given

to him, as such, there has been no deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs, it being false, frivolous and vexatious.

4.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex. C2 to C12 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. tendered affidavit of Meenu Sharma, Legal Manager, Ex.OP-1, photocopies of documents  Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-9 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file, including written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant, carefully.

 

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on 16.3.2014, the motorcycle in question of the complainant met with an accident, while his son was driving the same and his friend was pillion rider on it. In the said accident, both of them got injuries and had to be shifted to PGI, Chandigarh and remained admitted there till 24.3.2014, as is evident from the record of the PGI, Ex. C4. During that period, the said motorcycle was stolen from the place of accident. He tried his best to search the same, but when the same could not be traced, he complained about the same to the SHO concerned vide his application 17.3.2014 (Ex. C9) and had also informed about the same to the O.P. No.1 vide application of even date (Ex. C10) and FIR No. 55 dated 8.6.2014 (Ex. C3) was got registered with the Police Station concerned. Thereafter, he lodged the claim with the O.Ps., but they have refused to pay the same, inspite of the fact that he had informed the O.Ps. vide letter dated 17.3.2014(Ex.C10). Therefore, the O.Ps. be directed to pay the sum assured of Rs.29,975/-, compensation & litigation expenses alongwith interest.

 

7.                In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. vehemently argued that no doubt, the motorcycle in question was duly insured with the O.Ps., but no claim is payable to the complainant, because the intimation about the occurrence of the alleged theft was given on 26.3.2014, although the motorcycle in question was allegedly stolen after the accident, which had occurred on 16.3.2014, there was thus, delay of about 10 days, in giving intimation, which amounted to violation of Condition No.1 of the Conditions mentioned in the policy (Ex. OP-7). The copies of letters dated 17.3.2014 (Ex. C9 & C10) allegedly written to the SHO concerned and the O.P. No.1 are fake, because neither the same bear any receipt given by any official of the office concerned nor the complainant has produced on record any document, from which it can be inferred that the said letters were actually delivered in the said offices. Moreover, there is no mention about the above said letters even in the complaint or the affidavit filed by the complainant. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said letters to arrive at a conclusion that the complainant had intimated about the alleged occurrence to the police or O.P. No.1 on 17.3.2014. Even from the copy of FIR (Ex.C3), it is clear that the same was lodged on 8.6.2014, there was, thus, much delay in lodging of the same. Since the complainant had committed delay in informing the insurance company about the alleged theft of the motorcycle in question, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any claim amount, there being violation of the relevant condition of the policy in question.  He further submitted that in the case of—‘Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha’ Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010, decided on 17.08.2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the complaint holding that in terms of the policy issued by the insurance company, the insured was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately, after the incident. Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make endeavour to recover the same. He further submitted that even otherwise also, the complainant had not taken proper care of the motorcycle in question and left the same unattended at the spot of accident, alongwith ignition key in it, same is evident from the Motor Theft Claim Form, (Ex.OP-9), wherein he himself had mentioned that one ignition key of the said motorcycle was lost in January, 2011 and the second one was lying in it at the time of its theft. In order to process the claim lodged by the complainant, the O.P. No.1 had asked him vide its letters dated 20.8.2014 (Ex. OP-2) & dated 22.9.2014 (Ex. OP-3) to provide certain documents, and it was also informed to him that in the absence of the said documents, the O.P. was unable to process the claim. In the letter dated 22.9.2014, he was even informed that in case of non-supply of the requisite documents, the insurance company would be compelled to close his claim. Inspite of that, the complainant had not supplied the requisite documents. For the above said reasons, no claim amount is to be paid to the complainant under the policy in question and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., therefore, the instant complaint being meritless is liable to be dismissed with costs.

 

8.                It is an admitted fact that the motorcycle in question of the complainant was duly insured with the O.Ps. for the period from 24.11.2013 to 23.11.2014. The stand of the O.Ps. is that the claim is not payable because as per the policy conditions, the complainant was to inform the insurance company immediately after the occurrence of the theft of the motorcycle in question, but he had given intimation about the alleged theft to the insurance company with much delay. Whereas, the stand of the complainant is that there was no delay in intimating about the theft of the motorcycle in question to the O.Ps. because it had met with an accident on 16.3.2014 and got stolen from the place of accident. He had duly informed about the same to the police station concerned and also to the insurance company vide his letters dated 17.3.2014 (Ex. C9 & C10 respectively). On perusal of these letters, it has been observed by us that there is no receipt on the same given by any of the official of the offices concerned. The complainant has also not produced any other document, from which it can be said that actually the said letters were delivered in the said offices. Therefore, on the basis of the said letters, it cannot be concluded that the complainant had informed the O.Ps. about the alleged theft on 17.3.2014. From the copy of FIR (Ex. C3), it is evident that it was got lodged on 08.06.2014 and perusal of its contents reveals that the complainant had himself stated before the police that he was busy to look after his injured son and after passing of 7-8 days of occurrence of accident, when he had gone to the spot and found that the motorcycle was stolen. Thus, the stand of the complainant that he had informed about the theft of the motorcycle in question to the Police or to the O.P. insurance company on 17.3.2014 vide the above mentioned letters, gets falsified. Even in the Motor Theft Claim Form (Ex.OP-9), under the head “Details of Incident”, in the column meant for Date of Theft, he had mentioned the same to be between ‘16-Mar-14 to 24-Mar-14’. Further in the column “Has the theft been reported to the police”, it is written ‘Yes’ and the date of said reporting has been mentioned as ‘2-Apr-14’. Even from this document also his stand that he had informed about the theft of the motorcycle in question to the police on 17.3.2014 also gets falsified. From the above said documents, it is crystal clear that the complainant has taken a contradictory stand every time and he has failed to prove that he had informed the O.P. insurance company immediately after occurrence of the theft of the motorcycle in question. Thus, there has been violation of policy Condition No.1 of the Conditions mentioned in the policy (Ex. OP-7) by him. Hence, the O.P. insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. Our view is supported by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case—‘Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha’ (supra). Even from the record it is borne out that the complainant had not taken due care of the said motorcycle because in the Motor Theft Claim Form (Ex. OP-9) he had categorically stated that one ignition key of the said motorcycle was lost in January, 2011 and the second one was lying in it at the time of its theft and the same has been stolen alognwith the motorcycle. Since the complainant had left the motorcycle alongwith the ignition key in it, unattended at the spot of the accident, which also amounted to violation of Condition No.4 of the policy conditions and on this score also, the O.P. insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant.

 

9.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant is without any merit, consequently, we dismiss the same, with no order as to costs.

 

10.                     The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 20.07.2015                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.