DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Rajdeep Singh s/o Sh. Rajinder Singh, R/o #1461, Phase-X, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                   ---Complainant

Vs

[1]     Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Limited, Plot No.2-B & C, 4^th Floor, Iffco Complex, Madhya Marg, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh.

[2]     Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Limited, Iffco House, 3^rd Floor, 34 Nehru Palace, New Delhi – 110019, through its Managing Director.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:         SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                                 MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                      MEMBER

Argued By:             Sh. Sunil Dixit, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Ankur Gupta, Proxy Counsel for

Sh. Rishi Tandon, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the Complainant got his Truck bearing No. HR-37-B-8681 insured with the Opposite Parties vide Policy #  1-7L9X-4185 P400 Policy #: 38906346, valid from 01.05.2009 to 30.4.2010 (Annexure C-1). During the currency of the policy, the aforesaid truck was stolen in the intervening night of 28/29.7.2009. The Complainant immediately informed the police and an F.I.R. No. 242 dated 05.08.2009 was registered in P.S. Alipur, District North West, Delhi (Annexure C-3).  Also, the Complainant immediately informed the Opposite Parties about the theft of the vehicle, upon which an Investigator was appointed to verify the claim of the Complainant. The Complainant claims that he supplied each and every documents required for the settlement of the claim, but to his utter surprise, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 7.7.2011 (Annexure C-5) repudiated his claim on the ground that the vehicle was left unattended and the same got stolen while its original keys left in the vehicle. The Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 12.09.2011 (Annexure C-6), wherein he again demanded the settlement of his genuine claim, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

                   The complaint of the Complainant is not verified, but is duly supported by a detailed affidavit of Complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.                Opposite Parties, in their joint reply have contested the claim of the Complainant by raising preliminary objections to the effect that the Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; no cause of action has accrued in favour of the Complainant for filing the present complaint; the present complaint is not maintainable as the answering Opposite Parties are not liable for any deficiency in service.

                   On merits, the Opposite Parties have repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. It is pleaded that as per the submissions made by the Complainant in his claim form, his vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 28/29.07.2009 and the complaint to that effect was registered with the local police vide F.I.R. No.242 dated 5.8.2009. Thus, the complaint of alleged theft was not made to the police in time and no effective investigation could have been carried on for tracing the stolen truck. It is further claimed that the answering Opposite Parties in order to assess the authenticity of the claim and loss suffered, appointed an independent surveyor namely Vikas Kumar & Associates (Investigators), who submitted his report dated 02.01.2010. As per the said report, a number of documents were still awaited from the side of the Complainant, despite reminders. In the said report, the Investigator also submitted that it has also been confirmed that the vehicle got stolen along with its original key. The same was found to be a violation of the Condition No.5 of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and consequently, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 07.07.2011.  All other allegations of the Complainants were denied and a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the complaint.  

4.                Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

5.                The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant on account of his claim which was lodged with the Opposite Parties in the year 2009, after the vehicle owned by him was stolen. While going through the documents it is revealed that at the relevant point of time, when the truck owned by the Complainant was stolen, it was being driven by a Driver namely Sarvjeet Thapa s/o Gurudev Thapa. Even the F.I.R. was lodged by him on 5.8.2009, after a gap of 07 days as the theft had occurred in the intervening night of 28/29 July, 2009.               

6.                The initial intimation to the Opposite Parties about the happening of the theft was made by Sh. Rajinder Singh (father of the Complainant), and even when the Opposite Parties demanded certain documents and as they were not in his possession, the father of the Complainant demanded some time so that the duplicate copies of the same could be procured, to satisfy the demand of the Opposite Parties, as per their communication dated 2.1.2010. The Opposite Parties even on subsequent occasions had demanded these documents, through different communications. The Opposite Parties having failed in eliciting any response from the side of Complainant’s agent, preferred to close the claim file and return the documents.          

7.                The present complaint which is filed by the Complainant, the actual owner of the vehicle lost due to theft, was actually residing in Australia, at the time of the happening of the theft, and he has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties, only on coming back to India. In the absence of the Complainant, his father had disclosed to the Opposite Parties that at the time of theft of the vehicle, the driver had left the documents as well as the keys inside the vehicle, which were stolen along with the vehicle. There is an affidavit of the father of the Complainant (Annexure R-4), as well as the copy of intimation (Annexure R-5), wherein the father of the Complainant, who alone was of the knowledge that the documents, as well as the keys of the vehicle were stolen along with it. This information is found mentioned in both these documents. Hence, in the light of this evidence, the Opposite Parties are successful in proving that the Driver of the vehicle, who was its custodian, was negligent and failed to take necessary precautions to avoid such happening and as such, the Opposite Parties were very much within their rights, while not entertaining the claim of the Complainant, on account of his having breached the terms and conditions of the Policy. In the given situation, the Complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties. Hence, the present complaint deserves dismissal in the absence of any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence from the side of the Complainant. The same is accordingly, dismissed. There is no order as to costs.                                       

8.                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th January, 2013.                                                                

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”