Haryana

Sonipat

228/2013

DILBAGH SINGH S/O RAJINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S FUTURE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

K.K. Malik

23 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.       

 

                                Complaint No.228 of 2013

                                Instituted on:02.05.2013                                              Date of order:24.04.2015

 

Dilbagh Singh son of Rajinder Singh, resident of Janti Khurd, tehsil and district Sonepat.

..Complainant

                            Versus

 

M/s Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd., Ist Floor, Unit no.110 to 115 Krishna Apra Business Square, plot no.D-4/6, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi-110034 through its General Manager.

..Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. KK Malik, Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Nitin Jain Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the

respondent alleging himself to be the registered owner of Verna Car no.DL-7-CJ-6496 which was insured with the respondent for the period w.e.f. 3.7.2009 to 2.7.2010 for Rs.764352/-, but unfortunately, the said car was stolen on 23.9.2009 and intimation was given on PCR No.100 about 11.30/12 noon, but when the car was not traced, the respondent was also informed telephonically at about 5 pm on the same day.   FIR no.332 dated 16.11.2009 under section 379 IPC was registered with PS Kundli, distt. Sonepat.  The Hon’ble Court has passed the order on 24.1.2013 in respect of untraced report. The complainant has lodged the claim with the respondent and has submitted all the required documents, but despite this, the respondent did not bother to settle the claim of the complainant and the respondent has closed the claim case of the complainant as NO Claim and this wrongful act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the present complaint is time barred.  Further the theft of the car has been reported to have taken place on 23.9.2009,whereas the intimation about the theft of the same was given to the respondent on 8.10.2009 i.e. after 15 days of the alleged incident.   The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated because there was also violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant.  The respondent has denied the fact that the complainant has submitted all the required documents to the respondent insurance company.    The investigator has also sent letters dated 1.12.2009, 22.6.2010, 1.10.2010 and 20.12.2010 to the complainant to provide him the required document.  False story has been cooked up by the complainant by leveling false and baseless allegations upon the respondent insurance company.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the respondent insurance company only to harass and humiliate the complainant has not paid the claim amount to the complainant in respect of the car no.DL-7-CJ-6496 which was unfortunately stolen on 23.9.2009.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the present complaint is time barred.  Further the theft of the car has been reported to have taken place on 23.9.2009,whereas the intimation about the theft of the same was given to the respondent on 8.10.2009 i.e. after 15 days of the alleged incident.   The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated because there was also violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant.  The respondent has denied the fact that the complainant has submitted all the required documents to the respondent insurance company.    The investigator has also sent letters dated 1.12.2009, 22.6.2010, 1.10.2010 and 20.12.2010 to the complainant to provide him the required document.  False story has been cooked up by the complainant by leveling false and baseless allegations upon the respondent insurance company.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also argued that the complaint is highly time barred and IDV of the vehicle was wrongly calculated at the time of issuing the cover note as it should be Rs.7,26,350/- instead of Rs.764352/-.  He also submitted that the financier of the vehicle i.e. HDFC Bank Ltd. has not been impleaded as a party in the present case.  He also argued that as per the surveyor report, theft of the vehicle is doubtful.

          In the present case, the complainant himself has pleaded that the car was stolen on 23.9.2009 and after filing the criminal complaint, FIR no.332 dated 16.11.2009 was registered with PS Kundli, distt. Sonepat.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case law titled as Ramesh Yadav Vs. New India Ass. Co. Ltd. First appeal no.98 of 2014, decided on 3.4.2014, Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd. 1997(II) CPJ page 36 and New India Ass. Co. Ltd. Vs. MS Kohli 2004(IV) CPJ page 286.

          Similarly, ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the case law titled as Ganpat Rama Madhavi Vs. New India Ass. Co. Ltd.  CPC 2012(1) page 105, New India Ass. Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane First appeal no.321 of 2005 decided on 9.12.2009 and Reliance

 

General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Sathar Alias Sartaj, RP no.4964 of 2012 decided on 25.10.2013.

 

          In the present case, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 23.09.2009. As per the complainant, he reported the matter through registered post to the higher authorities on 20.10.2009 and thereafter he moved an application before the Ilaqa Magistrate, Sonepat for giving direction to the concerned police to register the case regarding the theft of the vehicle. 

 

          We have perused the entire relevant record available on the case file very carefully.  The complainant has not placed on record any postal receipt to prove that he reported the matter to the police officials on dated 20.10.2009 through registered post.   As per pleadings itself, he also not produced any telephone call details regarding intimation in the police station.  So, as per the

Pleadings itself after making a call on PCR no.100, he approached the police on dated 20.10.2009 i.e. after 27 days of the theft.  FIR, however, was registered on the direction of the Ilaqa Magistrate on dated 16.11.2009.  So, in our view, the case law of the Hon’ble National Commission rendered in case titled as New India Ass.Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane(Supra) is fully applicable to the case in hand and we are unable to ignore the fact that there is a delay of 48 days in lodging the FIR by the complainant.  Accordingly, it is held that the action taken by the respondent insurance company in the matter of the complainant is perfectly legal, fully justified and is binding upon the rights of the complainant and it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Thus, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.

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

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

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

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:24.04.2015