Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/191/2011

Dhyan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

D.C.Chaudhary

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                       Complaint No. 191 of 2011.

                                                                                       Date of institution: 08.03.2011.

                                                                                       Date of decision: 10.02.2016

Dhyan Singh aged about 50 years son of Sh. Babu Ram, resident of village Kanjnu, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. The Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insruance Company ltd. Branch Office, Plot No.2B & C, Sector-28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
2. The Managing Director, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., 3^rd Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
3. Iqbal Singh son of Sh. Rajinder Singh, resident of Village Khajuri, P.O. Baindi, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                        …Respondents.

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. D.C.Chaudhary, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Sh. Amit Bansal, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2

               Sh. Harpal Singh, Advocate, counsel for OP No.3.                 

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Dhyan Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents          ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay the insurance amount to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith upto date interest and further to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5500/-.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is owner of Hero Honda Motorcycle (Splendor) bearing registration No. HR-02J-5384, chassis No. 32754, Engine No. 27797 Model 2002 which was purchased by complainant from Iqbal Singh son of Rajinder Singh, on 9.6.2008. The complainant got insured the aforesaid vehicle with Op No.1 bearing policy No. 71825536 dated 27.01.2010 valid upto 26.01.2011. The motorcycle was fully insured with the OP company and complainant has paid the premium to the OP insurance company. On 25.09.2010, the complainant had gone to his shop as daily routine situated near Bus Stand Radaur and he parked his motorcycle infront of his shop which remained standing there upto 7.00 P.M. and at about 7.00 P.M. the complainant went to market on foot and when he came back to his shop after half an hour he was astonished to see that his vehicle was not there. The complainant went to police station Radaur to make his complaint in this regard and as such the complainant has made a written complaint to the said police station. The FIR No.120 dated 26.9.2010 was registered in P.S.Radaur, after that the police submitted untraceable report in the court of Sh. Surya Chander Kant, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. The complainant informed the OP insurance company regarding the theft of his motorcycle, they sent an investigator to enquire the matter, as such the complainant submitted all the original documents including R.C., pollution certificate, insurance cover note and police and other relevant documents and claim application has been registered bearing No. IEB812P-24 dated 7.10.2011. The complainant approached the OP company again and again and requested to do the needful in this regard but they did not pay any heed to his genuine and legal request. Hence this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice,  OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OPs No.1 & 2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in limine, complainant has not approach this Forum with clean hands, no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, no cause of action and on merit it has been submitted that the complainant in order to put undue pressure approached this Forum with unclean hands to gain unlawfully from the OPs No.1 & 2. The present complaint is without any cause of action and the present complaint is liable to be rejected as per the provision contained under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, which states that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. However, it is made clear that no claim has been lodged till date by the claimant/insured with the OPs No.1 & 2 regarding the theft of motorcycle No. HR-02J-5384. It has been further submitted that the OPs No.1 & 2 are only liable to pay the claim under the terms and conditions of the policy, moreover, it is made clear that it is the duty of the complainant to inform the OPs regarding theft of motorcycle without any delay, so that proper investigation could be conducted and due to the conduct of the complaint all the material evidence has been destroyed due to the lapse of time. Moreover as earlier stated that no claim has been lodged till date regarding the theft of motorcycle No. HR-02J-5384 by the complainant, as such the OPs No.1 & 2 are not liable to pay any claim  and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     OP No.3 filed his written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainant has got no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint, no cause of action has ever been arsien to the complainant against the OP No.3 and on merit it has been admitted to the extent that complainant was owner of motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-02J-5384 which was purchased from the answering OP on 09.06.2008. It has been further admitted that complainant has a shop near bus stand Radaur and complainant told him about the theft of his motorcycle in the last week of September 2010. Remaining all the allegations leveled in the present complaint are denied for want of knowledge and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of FIR as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of final report form as Annexure C-2, Copy of Untraceable report as annexure C-3, Photo copy of ration card as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of affidavit of Dhyan Singh as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2  tendered into evidence claim repudiation letter dated 5.7.2011 as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2 whereas evidence of OP No.3 failed to lead any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order on 11.12.2015.

7.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that genuine claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by the OPs No.1 & 2 Insurance Company on 5.7.2011( Annexure R-1) and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 hotly argued that claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated as the complainant was not the registered owner on the date of alleged theft as he purchased the said motorcycle on 09.06.2008 from Iqbal Singh which is evident from the copy of affidavit of complainant Annexure C-5 and written statement of the Op No.3 i.e. almost two (2) years prior to the alleged theft but neither the complainant got transferred the motorcycle in question in his name nor get insured this motorcycle in his name from the OPs No.1 & 2 Insurance Company. To prove his case complainant has filed only copy of FIR Annexure C-1, Copy of final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Annexure C-2, Untrace report dated 29.2.2012 Annexure C-3, photo copy of ration card Annexure C-4 and copy of his own affidavit Annexure C-5 but failed to produce copy of insurance cover note/policy, registration certificate of the motorcycle in question. Further the complainant has also fialed to rebut the version of the OPs Insurance Company. As per the version of the complainant himself he purchased the motorcycle in question on 9.6.2008 from the OP No.3 which is evident from Annexure C-5 and the theft took place on 25.9.2010 i.e. after almost two (2) years but the complainant failed to file any clarification report or any documentary evidence from the registering authority that he got transferred the registration certificate in his name. Even the complainant has not filed affidavit of seller and other purchase papers executed by previous owner i.e. Sh. Iqbal Singh son of Sh. Rajinder Singh. Counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards section 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act wherein it has been mentioned that the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of the transfer in the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance. But in this case, the complainant never applied for transfer the insurance in his name nor submitted any registration certificate of the motorcycle in question transferred in his name.

10.                   In these circumstances, after going through the above noted facts and provisions of the motor Vehicle Act, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 as the complainant has totally failed to prove his case that he was registered owner of the motorcycle in question and was having insurable interest on the date of alleged theft of motorcycle in question. So, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.   

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 10.02.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.