ORDER

16.10.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant purchased a car of make Ford Mondeo bearing registration no. DL-3CY-8640 from Noida toll bridge company ltd and after receiving all papers and completing all formalities relating to transfer of it in his own name he got it insured with the respondent company. It is stated that true copies of the certificate relating to transfer, registration certificate issued by government of national capital territory of Delhi said car and the insurance policy issued by respondent filed on record.
2. It is stated that details of the private car insurance package policy the certificate no.37263845, Manual policy no.926661/1082889/01 and cover note is 34728450. It is further stated that the period of insurance was extended over from 1840 hours on 20.07.2007 to mid night on 19.07.2008.
3. It is stated that on 20.03.2008 the complainant at 4 p.m. in the evening started alone for his village Daboda, Khurd, Dist Jhajhar on his car bearing registration no. DL 3CY 8640 and reached his village by 5 pm in night at 8.30 p.m. It is further stated that he processed from his village of his sister namely Daya day Nadik Bairi, Dist Jhajhar by said car and when he reached on jhajhar Beri Road suddenly a nilgay, appears and run to come in front of the car from the right side of the road. It is stated that complainant in order to save her, caught into surprise, suddenly applied break upon his car and tried to steer the car to the left side of the road. It is stated that unfortunately, complainant lost his balance in this endeavour and the car ran into a tree of kikar.
4. It is stated that because of the impact and collision the smoke started coming out from the engine which very soon turned into a fire and gradually the fire engulfed the whole car. It is further stated that in such a condition of panic complainant since it was 10.00 pm at night so he could not found anyone there to help him out. It is stated that still complainant managed to cal to fire office of Haryana, in pursuance of which the Haryana fire acted swiftly in that night, therefore, complainant moved ahead on foot and after some time found a two wheeler rider by whose help he reached to Jhajhar and from there on wards by taking lift in a truck and reached his house at Uttam Nagar.
5. It is stated that on the very next day i.e on 21.03.2008 on 10.00 a.m complainant alongwith his friend Sandeep again reached to Jhajhar to see his car and found that the whole  car was badly burnt. It is further stated that immediately therefore, the complainant reported the whole matter on Jhajhar police station and again reached to place of accident with police officials. It is stated that police officials thereafter proceeded in the matter in accordance with law, received his complaint to that effect also. It is stated that true copies of the statements of complainant, photographs of burnt car, report of Haryana fire office, complaint filed in Jhajhar police station by complainant are filed on record.
6. It is stated that thereafter, since the vehicle was insured with respondent, therefore, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the complainant applied to the respondent for motor insurance claim and furnished the full statement of accident alongwith all relevant piece of papers. It is further stated that nowithstanding the torturous mode and manner on investigation by the respondent the complainant as a bonafide person furnished all detail to respondent in reply to their letter dated 18.04.2008 vide another letter immediately and also requested to redressed his grievances as soon as possible.
7. It is stated that surprisingly again a vexatious, irrelevant and baseless enquiries of respondent dated 20.06.2008 was received by the complainant after a lull of prolonged period in which some newer pretexts were coined which was absolutely targeted to delay the claim of bonafide complainant. It is further stated that like letter 18.04.2008 the second letter dated 20.06.2008 was also full of anomalies, extraneous to the real issue (which should have been revolved around the establishment of the factum of a pure accident which has been very much established by the complainant with all necessary document statements and evidence). It is stated that notwithstanding these all things the complainant vide letter dated 26.06.2008 shown his protest to the act and conduct of respondent and also requested to act and react within the parameters of a reasonable man within the four corners of terms and conditions set in the contract of insurance implicit and explicit and which requires the claim to be addressed within 3 months at maximum.
8. It is stated that notwithstanding the protest cum request letter of complainant alongwith all relevant, pertinent and reasonably required information the respondent have not relented in their attitude and again endeavoured to prolong the issue of claim settlement by throwing very reckless, ridiculous and disgusting queries to the viz the complainant should furnish the details of his call log, like explaining thing that when he became nervous after accident why he did not go for medical assistance in night at 10.00 pm in the wilderness of Jhajhar road and similar many more disgusting queries were there in which point  but only towards i.e malafide intention of the respondents.
9. It is stated that complainant herein earlier filed a civil suit before the civil Judge in which vide order dated 18.12.2013 Hon’ble court was pleased to grant liberty to file a suit as per law, therefore, the present complaint filed. It is stated that copy of order sheet dated 18.12.2014 is filed on record.
10. Complainant is seeking direction against OP to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for the mental agony, pain and sufferings, Rs.1,00,000/- for transportation and miscellanies cost, to pay Rs.2,50,000/- for intention misconduct and defamation of complainant and Rs.9,50,000/- insured amount of vehicle. The complainant is seeking Rs.14,50,000/-  alongwith 24% per annum from 20.03.2008 till finalization of the present claim.
11. OP filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent/OP, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. It is stated that present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed being barred by law of limitation. It is further stated that present complaint is in respect of claim for an accident dated 20.03.2008 which was repudiated by the answering OP in September 2009 due to non reply of letters and reminders of the answering OPs and due to non completion of due requirements of the companies. It is stated that later on the complainant preferred a civil suit for the impugned claim against the answering OP in the court of Ms. Ritu Singh, Civil Judge Saket court, Delhi but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit as per law without prejudice to the rights and defences taken by the defendant in the present suit vide order dated 18.12.2013. It is stated that the liberty to file fresh suit was given to the plaintiff/complainant herein without prejudice to the rights and defences of the answering OP. It is further stated that the present complaint is time barred as the claim was repudiated in September 2009.
13. It is stated that the impugned policy for the vehicle no. DL3CY8640 was taken by the complainant for an IDV of Rs.950000/-. It is stated that the said vehicle allegedly met with an accident on dated 20.03.2008. It is further stated that answering OP appointed Sh. Gurjeet Chawla Surveyor, to assess the loss but the surveyor advised that the  case required thorough investigation. It is stated that as per advice of the surveyor, the answering OP appointed Sh. Sonu Bhola, Investigator, to investigate into the alleged loss and cause thereof. It is further stated that Sh. Sonu Bhola Investigator in his report highlighted the points that the vehicle in question was sold by the previous owner, M/s Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. to M/s E-4 Entertainment for Rs.4.5 lacs, which further sold to Mr. Sandeep, friend of the insured/complainant herein for Rs.4.05 lacs.
14. It is stated that the vehicle was later on got insured with the OP  for a greater amount of Rs.9.5 lacs. It is stated that the complainant/insured and his friend Mr. Sandeep are salvage buyers and that they purchase used cars at a very less price and get the same insured at a very high price, which is followed by total loss claim. It is further stated that since there were many suspicious points with respect to the occurrence of accident, the insured/complainant was asked to clarify various questions and also complete the requisite formalities but the complainant/insured did not properly answer/fulfill the various questions/requirements of the investigator despite letters dated 18.04.2008, 20.06.2008 and 04.10.2008. 
15. It is stated that the OP also vide letter dated 03.07.2009 and reminder dated 15.07.2009, advised the insured/complainant to comply with the requisite formalities and answer the queries of the investigator. It is further stated that in the said letter it was clearly mentioned that if the insured did not comply with requirements/answer the queries within seven days of the receipt of the letter, the  claim shall be treated as No-Claim. It is further stated that since there was no reply from the insured, the claim was closed as No-Claim in September 2009. It is stated that subsequently the insured filed a civil suit against the  OP in Jan-2011 in the court of Ms. Ritu Singh, Civil Judge, Saket Court, Delhi but was the same dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit as per law without prejudice to the rights and defences taken by the defendant in the present suit vide order dated 1812.2013.
16. It is stated that there is no cause of action against the OP. It is further stated that OP has rightly closed the claim in view of the investigation report, due to non reply of the letter and reminders of the investigator as well as the answering OP by the complainant/insured and due to non completion of requirements of  the answering OP/investigator. It is stated that the OP is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. The copy of investigation report is filed on record.
17. It is stated that the complainant has not approached the honorable forum  with clean hands and with clear conscious. It is further stated that complainant is guilty of suppressing, misrepresenting the true and material facts from this honorable forum, therefore, present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as he has not informed the company as well as the police about the immediate effect with regards to the accident.
18. It is stated that the complainant has not filed any police report with regards to the accident immediately, which clearly shows that the plaintiff is motivated to take the claim on the false, frivolous, concocted and mollified effected which have been created and/or cooked up the complainant himself with the sole intention to achieve his illegal goal. It is further stated that the occurrence of accident itself is not genuine as, it has not been supported with any documents even before this honorable forum, therefore, the complaint of complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
19. It is stated that the present  complaint of the complainant is absolutely  against the contract of insurance, which is totally based on good faith. It is further stated that the complainant is motivated to extort the money under the garb of the present false, frivolous, motivated  and bad complaint. It is stated that the complainant is indirectly motivated to recover the amount from the OP without completion of the formalities raised by the OP as per the rules and regulations of the insurance act.
20. It is stated that the investigator, Bhola and Associates have submitted their report dated 26.11.2008 in which it has clearly mentioned that the E for Entertainment Co. having its office at East of Kailash, New Delhi, has purchased the vehicle in question/car from the original owner, Noida Toll Bridge Co. Limited for a total sum of Rs.4,50,000 and after the said E for Entertainment Co., East of Kailash, New Delhi, sold the same to Mr. Sandeep, friend of the complainant. It is further stated that at the time of insurance of the car the complainant has declared the value of his car/vehicle in question as Rs.9,50,000/- as clearly mentioned in the insurance policy, which clearly shows the mollified intention and motive of the complainant.
21. It is stated that the act and conduct of the complainant clearly shows that the plaintiff insured his car with a pre plan to get the huge claim from the insurance company. It is further stated that complaint of complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
22. It is stated that after receiving the intimation about the accident from the complainant, the answering OP has appointed a surveyor to prepare a report with regards to the loss. It is further stated that the said surveyor namely Gurjeet Chawla, visited the spot of accident and submitted his report dated 17.04.2008, in which he clearly stated/suggested that “still the said case thorough investigation, which may be perused at the insurers end”. Therefore the defendant appointed Bhola and Associates to investigate the matter with regards to his geniuses and he had made various enquiries which was not  replied by the complainant.
23. It is stated that the complainant  lodged a claim with the OP in respect of the loss of his Ford Mondeo car bearing registration number DL3CY8640 which was burnt in an accident as per the complainant. It is further stated that after receipt of the claim form from the complainant; the OP has appointed its investigator Mr. Sonu Bhola, Advocate to make the investigation with regards to the accident and also to assess the loss. It is stated that the investigation had written letters dated 18.04.2008, 20.06.2008 and 04.10.2008 in which the investigator sough number of documents and information from the complainant but the complainant but the complainant has not given any information except to send a vague reply him, therefore complaint of complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  
24. It is stated that despite the letters and reminders of the letters of Mr. Sonu Bhola, the investigator answering respondent party, the respondent party has also written registered letter 03.07.2009 to the complainant about the completion of the formalities and to give reply to the letters of Mr. Sonu Bhola. It is further stated that when the complainant had given heard to the request of the answering respondent party, the answering respondent party had sent a registered letter dated 15.07.2009 in which it is clearly stated that if the complainant does not submit the required documents within 7 days of the receipt of the letter, then the claim shall be treated as NO CLAIM.
25. It is stated that the complainant has not given any response to this letter, hence the  OP closed the claim file of the complainant. It is stated that no cause of action has arisen in favor of the complainant and against the OP to file the present complaint, therefore complaint of complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
26. It is stated that the vehicle/Ford Mondeo car number DL 3C Y 8640 was insured with the  OP against the policy bearing number-37263845, manual policy number 926661/108288901 and cover note number 34728450 effective from 20.07.2007 to 19.07.2008  but the OP insured the said vehicle subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further stated that the complainant is motivated to force the answering OP to settle his false and frivolous claim by filing the present complaint, which is not payable at all under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore complaint of complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
27. It is stated that the OP has reserved its/their rights to give their proper  comments to the documents which might be filed by the complainant at the later stage, as the complainant has not filed the documents which were required or asked by the investigator during his investigation. It is stated that complaint of the complainant is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties. It is further stated that the complainant has impleaded the surveyor and officials of the answering respondent party in their personal capacity, which is absolutely bad in law because any official, because any official acting in a official capacity, can not be made a party to the complainant, therefore complaint of complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
28. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OP and contents of preliminary objections reiterated. It is stated that the investigator of the insurance company, who has a limited power or authority to investigate the genuineness of the loss/accident and access the loss and submit the report to OP for the consideration of claim. It is stated that the investigator visited the spot and found that about 200 yard number of peoples were residing but complainant did not make any effort to call anyone of them for help.
29. It is stated that in the absence of the required documents the surveyor/investigator was not in position to assess the loss and submit interim report. It is stated that complainant has not acted and or complied with the requirement of the investigator and in the absence of the documents the investigator was unable to assess the loss of the complainant. It is further stated that assessment by the surveyor is mandatory requirement of the Insurance Act and the complainant has not even cooperated to fulfill the statutory compliance. It is stated that the investigator vide letters dated 27.04.2008, 05.06.2008 and 20.06.2008 had called for the details and documents about the fire incident, the complainant despite receiving the letters did not choose to give any reply which compelled the surveyor to submit the interim report dated 26.11.2008.
30. It is stated that the OP no.1 had written registered letter dated 03.07.2009 and 15.07.2009 which clearly speak that if complainant does not provide the required documents and information within seven days from the receipt of the letter, the claim would be closed as No Claim. It is stated that complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed in the complaint.
31. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of complaint.
32. Complainant filed evidence by way his affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint. Complainant relied on true copies of the certificate relating to transfer, registration certificate issued by government of national capital territory of Delhi and insurance policy issued by respondent Ex.CW1/1 (Colly), true copies of statements of deponent, photographs of burnt car, report of Haryana fire office, complaint filed in Jhajhar police station by deponent Ex.CW1/2 (colly), true copy of letter written by deponent to respondent authorized representative in reply to the letter dated 18.04.2008 Ex.CW1/3, true copies of letter dated 20.06.2008 Ex.CW1/4 (colly), true copy of letter dated 4.10.2008 Ex.CW1/5 and copy of order sheet dated 18.12.2014 Ex.CW1/6.
33. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Anil Kumar Chadha, Vice President, Legal and reiterated contents of WS. OP relied on order of Civil Judge, Saket court dated 18.12.2013 Ex. A and copy of investigation report Ex. B.
34. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as by OP.
35. We have heard Sh. Vikas Vats proxy for Sh. V.K. Gupta counsel for OP. Neither complainant nor counsel appeared and addressed final arguments despite given ample opportunities. However we have gone through the written arguments filed on record.
36. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant got issued an insurance policy from OP Insurance Co. for the period 20.07.2007 to 19.07.2008. It is admitted that on 20.03.2008 the car of complainant bearing no. DL 3CY 8640 at night about 8.30 pm met with an accident at Jhajjar Haryana. The complainant alleged that he has lodged a complaint to police station Jhajjar as car was burnt. The complainant alleged that he filed claim with OP Insurance Co. The OP Insurance Co. on receiving the claim appointed Sh. Gurjeet Chawla Surveyor to assess the loss and as per advice thorough investigation was carried out by Sh. Sonu Bhola Investigator.
37. The OP Insurance Co. on the basis of investigation report alleged that the car in question was sold by the previous owner M/s Noida Toll Brigade Company Ltd. to M/s E-4 Entertainment for Rs.4,50,000/- which was further sold to Mr. Sandeep friend of complainant and got insured at greater amount of Rs.9,50,000/-. The OP Insurance Co. further alleged that the complainant and his friend Sandeep are salvage buyers and used to purchase cars at very less price and got insured at very got insured at very high price which is followed by total loss claim. The investigator asked the complainant to clarify various questions and to complete requisite formalities but despite several letters and reminders complainant failed, therefore, claim was closed as No Claim.
38. We have gone through the police report on 20.03.2008 on receiving complaint at around 11.20 pm in the night the police official when reached at the spot found that a burnt car was there but car number was not located and it was in burnt condition. The investigator repeatedly sought the information and clarification about the burnt car and other details but complainant failed to provide the same. It is pertinent to mention here that before this commission the complainant failed to elaborate the vital facts which were in dispute during investigation which resulted in closure of claim as No Claim. As per material on record the OP insurance company is legally fairly and justifiably closed the claim as No Claim.
39. It is pertinent to mention here that it is admitted by complainant that he had filed a civil suit before Rohini Courts and got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.12.2014. It is admitted that the cause of action arose lastly when claim was closed by Insurance company as No Claim in the year 2008.  The complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay as present complaint filed dated May 2014. The law is well settled that the limitation period for filing present complaint is two years as per section 24 A which is reproduced hereunder:-

As per section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : -

1. The District Forum, the state commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

2. Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the state commission or the National Commission , as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission , the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.

40. Admittedly, in the present facts and circumstances of this case the limitation of two years expired in August 2010 and present complaint filed dated May 2014 after delay of four years and complainant failed to file specific application for condonation of delay showing sufficient cause and reason. It is pertinent to mention here that Ld. Civil Judge specifically observed that after withdrawal of the Civil Suit any other fresh suit be filed by complainant shall be as per law and this order does not override the limitation provided under CP Act, 1986. We are of considered view that present complaint is barred by limitation.
41. On the basis of above observation and discussion present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
42. 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  16.10.2024.

       SANJAY KUMAR                                       NIPUR CHANDNA    

                           PRESIDENT                                                 MEMBER