Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1184/2010

Deepak Mehta S/o Manohar Lal Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Surbhit Verma

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 1184  of  2010.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 15.12.2010

                                                                                              Date of decision: 29.04.2016.

Deepak Mehta aged about 32 years son of Shri Manohar Lal Mehta, tesident of Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.          

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Officer, Opp. Hindu Girls College, Ambala Road, Jagadhri. 
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office at Opp. Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar through its Divisional Manager.

                                                                                                                … Respondents.

                       

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: None for complainant.   

              Sh. Karnesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondents. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Deepak Mehta filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking directions to the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) to make the payment of sum insured of the vehicle TATA 407 on account of theft and also to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/- and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he was owner of vehicle TATA 407 bearing registration No. HR-58C-1112 model 2000 (Annexure H) which was comprehensively insured with the OPs insurance company vide policy bearing No. 31/2008/4501 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- valid w.e.f. 30.9.2007 to 29.09.2008. During the insured period, the TATA 407 of the complainant was stolen at Malviya Nagar Delhi on 27.09.2008 and to this effect an FIR was got registered by one Ashwani Wadhwa with Police Station Malviya Nagar, Delhi vide FIR No. 708 dated 27.9.2008 (Annexure B). Information regarding the theft of vehicle had also been conveyed to the OPs Insurance Company. When, whereabouts of the vehicle had not been known then ultimately the police submitted the untraceable report regarding the theft of vehicle in question. Complainant, alongwith all the concerned papers, put the claim No. 31/2010/000001 before the OPs. The complainant was stunned to receive a letter dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure C) sent by Op No.2 in which the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the Ops insurance Company on the ground that route permit and fitness were not having valid on the date of theft i.e. on 27.09.2008 and the complainant has not complied with the instructions and letters issued by investigators M/s Kotilya Detective and Investigation Agency, New Delhi. Lastly, prayed that as the genuine claim of the complainant has been wrongly repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company, hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of Ops Insurance Company. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, alleged theft had taken place at New Delhi, hence this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, claim of the complainant had already been repudiated on legal and valid grounds and the complainant had already been informed about the fate of his claim vide letter dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure R-15). There was no insurable interest of the insured as the vehicle was sold 8 years back as per investigation report (Annexure R-3), by the complainant to one Ashwani Wadhwa. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands, and has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It has been admitted that vehicle bearing registration No. HR-58C-1112 was insured with the OPs Insurance Company in the name of Deepak Mehta son of Sh. Manohar Lal, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar vide insurance policy No. 4501/2008 (Annexure R-1) for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- w.e.f. 30.9.2007 to 29.09.2008. On receipt of intimation letter dated 17.03.2009 (Annexure R-2) regarding the alleged theft of the vehicle in question, the OPs Insurance Company registered the claim and M/s Kotilya Detective and Investigation Agency was deputed for investigating the facts of the case who submitted his report dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure R-3). As per report of the investigator, the vehicle was in the possession of one Ashwani Wadhwa who was driving the abovesaid vehicle since last 8 years without transfer of ownership. The investigator also wrote various letters to the insured about remaining evidence/papers/ confirmation of claim but he did not reply anything. These letters was also posted through postal receipt vide No. ER00898200 4 IN dated 09.07.2009 and ER 031669435 IN dated 02.07.2009. Besides this, some letters were also written by the Investigator to the insured on dated 8.7.2009, 28.8.2009, 11.11.2009, 9.7.2009 and 1.7.2009 copy of which are Annexure R-4 to R-8 respectively. On receiving the investigation report, the OP Insurance company also wrote a registered letter dated 16.01.2010 to clarify that why he is not complying the letters of the investigator and why the complainant had not submitted the documents as desired by the investigator. Reminder was also given vide registered letter dated 11.7.2010 (Annexure R-10). Wherein it was mentioned that “As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the theft claim has to be reported in the insurance company within 48 hours but have intimated six (6) months later, explain the reason for late intimation”. The FIR No. 708 dated 27.09.2008 (Annexure-R11) has been lodged by that Ashwani Wadhwa, facts of which clearly shows that the said vehicle in question was in possession of Ashwani Wadhwa as owner. Meaning thereby that insured/ complainant had no insurable interest and the insured is not liable for any claim legally as well as factually. The fitness of the truck was valid up to 15.02.2006 (Annexure R-13). The contents of the application (Annexure R-14) written by Ashwani Wadhwa to SHO Malviya Nagar, New Delhi dated 27.9.2008 also corroborated the version of the FIR from which it is clear that Ashwani Wadhwa was owner in possession of the vehicle in question as owner. The late intimation given to the company regarding the alleged theft also violates the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, so, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated and was duly informed. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and on merit reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities including last with costs and ultimately the evidence of the complainant was closed by court order dated 27.03.2015. However, at the time of filing of complaint filed short affidavit of complainant and documents such as Photo copy of FIR as Annexure A, Photo copy of report under section 173 Cr.P.C as Annexure B, Photo copy of letter dated 22.9.2010 as Annexure C, Photo copy of letter dated 25.5.2010 as Annexure D, Photo copy of affidavit of Deepak Mehta as Annexure E, Photo copy of untraceable report as Annexure F, Photo copy of Form No.III for Road Tax as Annexure-G, Photo copy of RC as Annexure-H  in support of his complaint.  

 5.                    On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. R.S.Kalra, Divisional Manager as Annexure RX and documents such as Photo copy of Insurance policy as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of claim intimation format as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of Investigation report as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of letters Annexure R-4 to R-10, Photo copy of FIR as Annexure R-11, Photo copy of RC as Annexure R-12, Photo copy of Road Tax as Annexure R-13, Photo copy of application written to SHO for lodging FIR as Annexure R-14, Photo copy of repudiation letter Annexure R-15, Photo copy of statement of neighbourer of Ashwani Wadhwa, New Delhi as Annexure R-16 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for OPs and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully

7.                     It is not disputed that TATA 407 bearing registration No. HR-58C-1112 Model 2000 was insured with the OPs Insurance Company vide its insurance policy bearing No. 31/2008/4501 for a sum insured of Rs. 1,50,000/- w.e.f. 30.09.2007 to 29.09.2008 (Annexure R-1) in the name of Deepak Mehta. It is also not disputed that the vehicle in question was not stolen on 27.09.2008 from Malviya Nagar, New Delhi which is evident from copy of FIR bearing No. 708 dated 27.09.2008 registered in the Police Station Malviya Nagar, new Delhi (Annexure A) and further from the copy of report under section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure B) and untraceable report (Annexure F).

8.                     The only plea of the complainant is that his genuine claim has been wrongly repudiated by the OPs Insurance Company on the false ground  whereas on the other hand, version of the OPs Insurance Company is that the route permit and fitness of the vehicle in question was not valid on the date of theft i.e. on 27.09.2008 and further the complainant intimated the Ops insurance company vide intimation letter dated 17.03.2009 (Annexure R-2) i.e. after a period of about 6 months and further even from the report of investigator the vehicle in question was in the possession of Mr. Ashwani Wadhwa from the last 8 years without transfer of ownership. Even, the complainant did not reply the letters (Annexure R-4 to R-8) seeking clarification and further letters written by the OPs Insurance Company Annexure R-9 and R-10. The act of the insured falls under  “ non compliance of instructions and non response of letters proves non insurable interest of the insured”. Hence, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs insurance Company and learned counsel for the OPs referred the case law titled as United India Insurance Company & others Versus Bhupinder Singh, III(2014) CPJ page 20 (NC) wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b)- Insurance- Theft of vehicle- Insurable interest- Non transfer of ownership- Delay in intimation- Claim repudiated. Learned counsel for the OPs further referred the case law titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Maha Singh, III(2014) CPJ page 204 (NC) wherein it has been held that Delay of 26 days in lodging FIR and delay of 3 ½ months in giving intimation to insurance company- Violation of conditions of policy and also further referred the case law titled as Madan Singh Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, 1(2009) CPJ page 158 (NC). Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.       

9.                     We have perused the copy of intimation letter Annexure R-2, from which it is clearly evident that the claim was lodged with the OPs Insurance Company on 17.03.2009 i.e. after a period of near about 6 months. Although the FIR has been lodged on the same day i.e. on 27.09.2008 but the intimation to the insurance company has been given after a period of near about 6 months which clearly violates the terms and conditions of the insurance policy condition No.1. Further, from the contents of the FIR Annexure A/R-11, copy of application moved to SHO Malviya Nagar, New Delhi for lodging the FIR (Annexure R-14) and statement of neighbourers (Annexure R-16) as well as report of the Investigator (Annexure R-3) it is clearly evident that the vehicle in question was in the possession of one Ashwani Wadhwa as owner from the last 8 years and the complainant failed to submit any clarification sought by the OPs Insurance Company as well as Investigator through various letters as well as ordinary letters Annexure R-4 to R10 that in what capacity the said vehicle was in the possession of Mr. Ashwani Wadhwa. Even the complainant has also not disclosed the iota of word in that respect in his complaint that in what capacity the vehicle in question was in possession of Ashwani Wadhwa of Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. Meaning thereby that there was no insurable interest in favour of the complainant. Further, we have also perused the copy of fitness certificate (Annexure R-13) from which it is also evident that fitness of the vehicle had already been expired on 15.02.2006 and no evident to controvert this version has been filed by the complainant. Even, the complainant has not filed the route permit for Delhi State. From the perusal of Road Tax (Annexure G and Annexure R-13), it is evident that only tax of Haryana State has been paid by the complainant and no road tax has been paid for Delhi State. Meaning thereby that the vehicle in question was not having any permit for Delhi State.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the version of the complainant is not tenable as the citation referred by the counsel for the OPs Insurance Company are fully applicable to the facts of the present case and the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs Insurance Company.  

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 supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 29.04.2016.

                                                                                          ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER