Haryana

Ambala

CC/212/2018

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Iffco Tokio - Opp.Party(s)

24 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  212 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution  :  09.07.2018.

                                                          Date of decision     : 24.12.2019.

Sh. Kuldeep Singh s/o Shri Madan Mohan, r/o village Berpura, Naraingarh, Ambala, Haryana (India) through its GPA Sh. Vinay Kumar.

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

The Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office at IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 & Branch Office at 6330, IInd Floor, Above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt-133001.

     ….…. Opposite Party.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Udai Singh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

        Shri R.K. Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To pay the claim amount as per IDV of the vehicle in question alongwith interest @18% per annum.
2. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges.
   382.  

                   Any other relief which  this Hon’ble Forum may deem  fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of heavy goods vehicle having Registration No.HR37-C-8678 and the same was insured with the OP vide policy No.89161346 dated 24.09.2014 w.e.f. 25.09.2014 to 24.09.2015, having Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.10,07,000/-. On 03.09.2015, in the night, he parked his truck, under a bridge opposite to Petrol Pump, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City and in the morning on 04.09.2015, the truck was missing from the parked spot. He immediately intimated the police regarding theft of his truck. Lots  of efforts were done by him and the police, but the truck could not be found and ultimately, the police registered the FIR No.271 dated 26.09.2015 u/s 379 of IPC, PS Baldev Nagar. The police was unable to find the truck and finally police had submitted report u/s 173 (2) of Cr.PC in the concerned Court. The OP registered his claim and issued claim No.11036 and deputed an investigator namely Shri Jagjit Singh Sethi, who wrote a letter dated 11.09.2015 to him for submission of certain documents. He submitted all the requisite documents with the OP, despite of that, it had sent him reminders dated 08.04.2016, 06.05.2016, 18.05.2016 & 26.05.2016 respectively. Inspite of submitting all the requisite documents, the OP did not process his claim. Complainant served a legal notice upon the OP, but of no avail. By not paying the claim amount, the OP has committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction and cause of action. It is further stated that the GPA does not fall within the ambit of competent person to approach the Court claiming to be a consumer. The claimant Mr. Vinay Kumar admitted in his statement that he has purchased the vehicle from Kuldeep Singh through GPA. The contents of the GPA itself prove that the vehicle has been sold to Mr. Vinay Kumar, so the policy holder Mr. Kuldeep Singh sold the vehicle to Mr. Vinay Kumar and transferred his rights in favour of purchaser through power of attorney. The claimant Mr. Vinay Kumar is the actual owner of the vehicle at the time of theft, so the insurable interest of Mr. Kuldeep Singh terminated on the insured vehicle with its sale. The FIR in this case was registered on 26.09.2015 i.e. after lapse of 23 days and insurance company was informed on 08.09.2015 i.e. after 5 days regarding the alleged theft in violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy. The complainant failed to submit the sets of original ignition and cabin keys of stolen vehicle despite of repeated requests and reminders. The complainant earlier filed a complaint in the year 2017 but withdraw the same on 11.05.2018 for the reasons best known to him. The filing of this complaint on 29.08.2018 categorically shows that the complaint was filed after expiry of period of limitation and as such, delay has not been condoned. On merits, rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for lack of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of Sh. Vinay Kumar, GPA of complainant as Annexure CA along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered affidavits of Shri Rajiv Ranjan and Jagjit Singh Sethi, Insurance Investigator as Annexure OP-A & OP-B alongwith documents Annexure OP1 to OP23 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                 We have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that his duly insured truck was stolen on the intervening night of 03/04.09.2015. He got registered an FIR with the police and also informed the OP about the said incidence. He lodged the claim and also submitted all the requisite documents with the OP, but it did not pay the claim amount.

                   On the contrary, the learned counsel for OP has vehemently argued that GPA does not fall within the ambit of competent person to approach the Court claiming to be a Consumer. He further argued that Mr.Vinay Kumar in his statement Annexure OP/6 has categorically stated that, he had purchased the vehicle in question from Kuldeep Singh through General Power of Attorney. Once Mr. Kuldeep Singh had already sold the vehicle in question to Mr. Vinay Kumar then Mr. Kuldeep Singh has no insurable interest in the vehicle & is thus,  is not entitled to get any claim.  Furthermore, the FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle in question was got registered with the police, after a delay of 23 days and information to the Insurance Company was given after a delay of 5 days, from the date of occurrence of the incidence. Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get inquiry conducted in to the alleged theft of vehicle & make an endeavour to recover the same. There is violation of condition No.1 of the policy, therefore, no claim is payable to the complainant and the complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

6.                From the perusal of the General Power of Attorney (Annexure C-1), it is revealed that Mr Kuldeep Singh has authorized Mr. Vinay Kumar to file a complaint on his behalf, thus, this plea of the learned counsel for the OP that the present complaint filed by GPA is not maintainable, is not tenable. The OP has contended that Mr. Vinay Kumar, has purchased the vehicle in question from the complainant, as such, he has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. This contention of the OP has not been controverted by the complainant, as such, we have no reason to disbelieve the said contention of the OP. From the record it is borne out that there is delay of 23 days in lodging the FIR with the police and delay of 5 days in informing the Insurance Company about the theft of the vehicle in question. In the case of M/s Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., decided on 21.08.2018 by three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in  Para No.27 of the said judgement, it has been held that “the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision in Om Parkash Versus Reliance General Insurance and Another,  to contend that the genuine claim of the appellant ought not to be rejected on technical ground, keeping in mind that the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation warranting liberal construction. That contention cannot be taken forward at the instance of the appellant who has failed to fulfil the threshold stipulation contained in Clause 6 of the general conditions of the policy and for which reason must suffer the consequence. It is not a technical matter but sine qua non for a valid claim to be pursued by the insured, as agreed upon between the parties.

7.       Taking all the facts of the present case into consideration and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., (Supra), we hold that the present complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits; consequently, we dismiss the same, without any order as to costs.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on:24.12.2019.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member             President