Haryana

StateCommission

A/1091/2019

DALBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SANJAY VERMA

24 Sep 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    1091 of 2019

Date of Institution:  16.12.2019

Date of Decision:    24.09.2020

 

Dalbir Singh son of Shri Kushal Singh, resident of Hathin Gate, Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwal, Haryana.

 

 

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

Magma HDI General Insurance Company Limited, service will be effected through its Branch Manager of Branch Office situated at 5-R/1, Shop No.8, Ground Floor, Near HDFC, NIT Faridabad.

 

Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     Shri Sanjay Verma, counsel for the appellant.

                    

                  

                            

O R D E R

 

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons as specified in the miscellaneous application.

2.      Complainant Dalbir Singh had filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party-Magma HDI General Insurance Company Limited, whereby he sought issuance of directions to the opposite party to make payment of a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to him towards claim/compensation amount along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of loss of vehicle till its actual realization; Rs.1,00,000/- for unnecessary harassment, mental as well as physical on account of deficient service and Rs.51,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite party put in appearance and filed the written version.

4.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad found the complaint to be meritless and accordingly dismissed the same.

5.      Aggrieved of the said order, the complainant is before the State Commission by way of appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

6.      According to the complainant, his vehicle Truck LPT-2515 bearing registration No.UP-17-C-3726 insured with opposite party vide policy w.e.f. 30.10.2013 to 29.10.2014 was stolen on 23.12.2013 at about 10:30 P.M. when he had parked his vehicle on service road, Nawada Chowk ahead of Meera Magan Paradise, Mathura in order to take food from Sainik restaurant. Lateron he could not trace his vehicle and accordingly filed application before Incharge, P.S. Highway, Mathura on the same day. On 24.12.2013, he submitted an application for registration of case against unknown person but the investigator did not take any action. The case was registered on the direction of Ilaqa Magistrate, Mathura vide FIR No.176 with the said Police Station.  The complainant submitted claim with the opposite party but opposite party did not release the claim amount to the complainant. He also sent a legal notice through his counsel but opposite party did not pay any heed to the same. The complainant filed a complaint before Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Camp Court, Palwal but the said complaint was withdrawn as opposite party did not have local office at Palwal. The complainant accordingly prayed for directing the opposite party to pay the various amount as mentioned above.

7.      The opposite party in its written version refuted the claim of the complainant and pleaded that as per IRDA guidelines, claim amount was to be released to the financer in case of total loss. The complaint was misconceived. There was a delay of 54 days in lodging FIR under the directions of Ilaqa Magistrate and 62 days in intimating the opposite party about the offence which was violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy. The complainant had violated condition No.5 by not safeguarding the vehicle in question. The insurance claim was not a source of enrichment of an insured person. The complainant had neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the complaint. Upon receipt of intimation of occurrence for the first time on 26.02.2014 an independent person was deputed as an investigator, who furnished his report dated 04.09.2014 to the opposite party stating therein that the complainant had failed to co-operate in supplying claim documents such as copy of route permit, fitness and tax receipt. The complainant had failed to supply and furnish the requisite mandatory claim documents as mentioned in the written statement either to the investigator or the opposite party despite several reminders. The application dated 23.12.2013 submitted to the Police Station Highway, Mathura was a bogus document as the said application did not mention FIR No.83 dated 15.02.2014. It was however admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party vide policy as mentioned above in the name of the complainant for insured declared value of Rs.7,00,000/-. Accordingly, prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

8.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that there is no merit in the appeal. It is true that the truck in question was insured with the opposite party and the same was allegedly stolen on 23.12.2013 at about 10:30 P.M., having been parked on service road, Nawada Chowk ahead of Meera Magan Paradise, Mathura, but fact remains that the intimation regarding theft of the vehicle was given to the opposite party on 26.02.2014. There was thus a delay of 62 days in giving of intimation to the opposite party and 54 days in lodging of FIR, which was clear violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There is no material whatsoever placed on record from which it could be made out that there was no delay in giving intimation by the complainant to the opposite party. In such a situation, the State Commission cannot come to the rescue of the complainant so as to direct the opposite party to pay the various amounts as mentioned above. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed. 

 

 

Announced 24.09.2020

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.