Haryana

Sonipat

31/2013

UMESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.M.INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP DAHIYA

18 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.31 of 2013

                                Instituted on:09.01.2013

                                Date of order:18.09.2015

 

Umesh son of Chand Roop, r/o village Shahpur Turk, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1. M/s L&T Gen.Ins. Co. Ltd., 6^th Floor, DCM Building, 16 Barakhamba road, Connaught place, New Delhi-01 through its Regional Manager.
2. M/s L&T Finance Ltd., having its branch office at SCO 224, Sector 12,Karnal through its Branch Manager.
3. M/sVijay Agro Engg. Works, Gurudwara road, Sonepat through its Prop/Manager.                                                                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Dahiya, Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Rohit Gupta, Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Anil Sidher, Adv.for respondent no.2.

           Respondent no.3 ex-parte.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

DV Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that  he has purchased one Mahindra Tractor bearing no.HR10R/9523 and the same was insured with the respondent no.1 and 2 for Rs.5,51,000/- for the period 30.8.2011 to 29.8p.2012, but unfortunately the same was stolen on 16/17.1.2012.  FIR no.30 dated 17.1.2012 u/s 379 IPC was got registered with the concerned police station.  Untrace report was also issued to the complainant .  The complainant lodged the claim with the respondent no.1 and submitted all the required documents for the settlement of his claim.  But the respondent no.1 has not paid even a single penny to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent no.1 has submitted that the theft allegedly took place on 16.1.2012 and FIR was registered on 17.1.2012 but intimation to the insurance company was given as on 11.9.2012 i.e. after 8 months and that amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant.  Further there is gross negligence on the part of the complainant as he parked his tractor with keys in the ignition switch.  The complainant himself has failed to safeguard the vehicle from loss and damage.  So, the respondent no.1 was unable to entertain the claim of the complainant and the same was duly informed to the complainant vide letter dated 27.12.2012.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.1 since the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant has entered into a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement with the respondent no.2 for the purchase of the tractor as per terms and conditions of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement.

 The complainant has taken a loan of Rs.3,70,000/- from the respondent no.2, who is financier of the tractor in question.

          It is pertinent to mention here that before filing reply by the respondent no.3, the respondent no.3 was proceeded against ex-parte.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the theft allegedly took place on 16.1.2012 and FIR was registered on 17.1.2012 but intimation to the insurance company was given as on 11.9.2012 i.e. after 8 months and that amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant.  Further there is gross negligence on the part of the complainant as he parked his tractor with keys in the ignition switch.  The complainant himself has failed to safeguard the vehicle from loss and damage.  So, the respondent no.1 was unable to entertain the claim of the complainant and the same was duly informed to the complainant vide letter dated 27.12.2012.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.1 since the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that  the complainant has entered into a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement with the respondent no.2 for the purchase of the tractor as per terms and conditions of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement.  The complainant has taken a loan of Rs.3,70,000/- from the respondent no.2, who is financier of the tractor in question.

          In the present case, the theft of the tractor is not disputed by the respondent no.1.  Theft of the tractor has taken place during the intervening night of 16/17.1.2012 and just after this incident, FIR was lodged with the concerned police station.

          The plea of the respondent no.1 is that there is a delay of about 8 months in giving intimation to the respondent no.1 by the complainant regarding the theft of the tractor.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant on the point of delay intimation to the respondent no.1 by the complainant has submitted that the complainant was in custody and was in Jail on 2.2.2012 by the order of the court of Shri D.N. Bhardwaj, ld. CJM Sonepat in FIR no.55 dated 18.1.2012 u/s 222/223/224/120B/451 IPC and 3PPD Act 1984 and the prisoner (complainant) was released on bail on 25.8.2012  in the said FIR by the order of Ms. Ankita Sharma, learned JMIC Sonepat.  So, if there was delay in intimation to the respondent no.1 regarding the theft of the vehicle, the same was only due to the reasons mentioned above.

          So, in our view, non-payment of the claim amount to the complainant by the respondent no.1 on the ground of delay intimation is totally wrong, illegal and unjustified because the complainant was in Jail w.e.f. 2.2.2012 to 25.8.2012 and this fact is duly corroborated by the certificate of jail custody Ex.C4.  Thus, in our view the complainant is legally liable for the claim amount in respect of the policy in question because the theft of the tractor in question has taken place during the validity of the insurance policy. 

          In the present case, the tractor in question was duly financed with respondent no.2.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to make the payment of the Rs.5,51,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint.  The respondent no.1 is further directed to make the aforesaid payment to respondent no.2, financier of the tractor and to satisfy the loan liability in respect of the tractor in question and after doing so, if any amount is found in excess, then the same be paid to the complainant.  Further even after this, if any amount is found due towards the complainant in respect of the financed tractor, the complainant shall pay the same to the respondent no.2 financier of the tractor.

 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

    Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:18.09.2015