THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 392-14
Date of Institution : 22.7.2014
Date of Decision : 08.04.2015
Shri Sanjeet Nirmal S/o late Sh. Shiv Chander Sah, Resident of H.No. 571, Housing Board Colony, Ranjit Avenue, C Block,Amritsar
Shri Pinto Kumar s/o Sh.Ram Chander R/o 627, Housing Board Colony, C-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar
...Complainants
Vs.
M/s. The New India Assurance Company Limited branch office G.T. Road,Rayya through its branch manager or any other person competent to receive summons
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainants : Sh.B.S.Sachdeva,Adv.
For the opposite party : Sh.S.S.Randhawa,Adv.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by S/Sh. Sanjeet Nirmal & Pinto Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that complainant No.1 is the owner of Discover Motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-02-BX-6378 got the same insured with the opposite party vide policy No.31120100002451. According to the complainants on 28.5.2013 complainant No.2 Pinto Kumar was going for some work towards Kathunangal on the said motorcycle and when he reached on the kacha berm of canal Kotla Khurd (Khushipur), he stopped for passing the urine when two persons came from backside on motorcycle No. PB-18-N-8004 . They suddenly attacked complainant No.2 Pinto Kumar with a knife and after injuring him on his forehead and hand with the knife, snatched the motorcycle alongwith his purse containing Rs. 200/-, his driving license and other miscellaneous documents and went away after leaving their motorcycle bearing No. PB-18-N-8004 at the spot. Said Pinto Kumar was admitted in CHIC Majitha for treatment. Complainant No.2 also narrated the whole incident to complainant No.1 telephonically , who contacted the local police for obtaining copy of FIR and after lot of efforts FIR No. 47 dated 30.5.2013 was got recorded on the statement given by complainant No.2 that the said motorcycle has been snatched from him by the assailants after injuring him. The police authorities also issued non-traceable report dated 15.10.2013. The claim was lodged with the opposite party but opposite party instead of settling the claim, repudiated the claim vide letter dated 16.7.2013 on the ground that complainant No.2 has committed gross negligence by leaving the ignition key with the parked motorcycle. Complainants have alleged that the repudiation of the claim is totally against the facts of the case as the complainant had never parked or left the motorcycle but he had just stopped at the spot with intention to urinate , but the opposite party did not listen the complainants. Complainant again approached the opposite party to enquire why the matter has been misinterpreted by the opposite party and the concerned official advised him that the claim has been repudiated due to the facts mentioned in the FIR that the key has been left in the motorcycle and was left unattended and also advised the complainant to get the FIR amended from the police authorities. On the advice of said official of the opposite party, the complainant again approached the concerned police authorities who on the request of the complainant issued a Tarmima (correction) dated 15.1.2014 stating that the words “key left in the motorcycle” have inadvertently been mentioned in the FIR,whereas the fact was that the said motorcycle was snatched from Pinto Kumar. Complainant also supplied copy of said correction of the FIR to the opposite party , but even then opposite party did not pay any heed. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to settle the claim of complainant No.1 and pay the insured value of the motorcycle alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that in the FIR it has been stated that Pinto Kumar was going to village Kathu Nangal on motorcycle No. PB-02-BX-6378 and during the journey when he reached near bridge Canal Khusi Pur, he had stopped and parked the motorcycle near canal to pass the urine and left the ignition key in the motorcycle and in the meantime two youngman came on motorcycle No. PB-18-N-8004 and they had taken the motorcycle of the complainant and left the abovesaid motorcycle No. PB-18-N-8004 at the spot. It was submitted that Pintu Kumar has no insurable interest as insured in policy is Sanjit Nirmal. The alleged Tarmima (Correction) is dated 15.1.2014 whereas untraced report has been moved by the police in the court of Sh. S.S.Josan, ACJM,Amritsar which was accepted on 11.10.2013 in which Pinto Kumar has made the statement that he agrees with the untraced report and he has no objection if the same is accepted and as such after acceptance of the untraced report,any Tarmima made by the police has no value in the eyes of law. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant No.1 tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of newspaper cutting Ex.C-2, copy of FIR Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copy of letter dated 20.1.2014 Ex.C-5, copy of report dated 30.5.2013 Ex.C-6, copy of non-traceable report Ex.C-7, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-8, copy of medical receipt Ex.C-9, copy of missing driving license and mobile report Ex.C-10, letter dated 16.7.2013 Ex.C-11, affidavit of Pinto Kumar, complainant No.2 Ex.C-12..
4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Sunil Mahajan Ex.OP1, letter dated 16.7.2013 Ex.OP2, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP3, copy of statement of Pinto Kumar Ex.OP4, copy of order of the court of Sh.S.S.Josan Ex.OP5.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant No. 1 who is the owner of Discover Motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-02-BX-6378 got insured the same with the opposite party vide policy No.31120100002451. As per complainants's version during the subsistence of the policy on 28.,5.2013 complainant No.2 Pinto Kumar was going for some work towards Kathunangal on the said motorcycle and when he reached on the kacha berm of canal Kotla Khurd (Khushipur), he stopped for passing the urine when two persons came from backside on motorcycle No. PB-18-N-8004 . They suddenly attacked complainant No.2 Pinto Kumar with a knife and after injuring him on his forehead and hand,snatched the motorcycle alongwith his purse containing Rs. 200/-, his driving license and other miscellaneous documents and went away after leaving their motorcycle bearing No. PB-18-N-6378 at the spot. Said Pinto Kumar reported the mater to the police on the basis of which FIR No. 47 dated 30.5.2013 was registered at P.S. Kathunangal u/s 379/34 IPC against unknown persons, copy of which is Ex.C-3.Pinto Kumar alleges that he was admitted in CHIC Majitha for treatment. The matter was reported to the opposite party. The police could not trace out the said motorcycle of complainant No.1 and they issued non-traceable report dated 15.10.2013 Ex.C-7.The claim was lodged with the opposite party but the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 16.7.2013 Ex.C-11 alleging that the complainant has committed gross negligence by leaving the ignition key with the parked motorcycle on the basis of the contents of the FIR. The complainant got the FIR corrected vide report Ex.C-6. But even then the opposite party did not pay the claim of the complainant regarding theft of the aforesaid insured motorcycle. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that complainant No.2 himself has committed gross negligence by leaving the ignition key with the parked motorcycle which is clear cut breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Further the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands . He has himself represented and not disclosed the proper facts as mentioned in FIR because in the FIR Pintu Kumar has submitted that he was going to Vill. Kathu Nangal on this insured motorcycle and when he reached near bridge Canal Khusi Pur, he stopped and parked the motorcycle near canal to pass the urine and left the ignition key in the motorcycle. In the meantime two youngman came on motorcycle No. PB-18-N-8004 and they have taken the motorcycle of the complainant and left their own motorcycle No. PB-18-N-8004 at the spot. The alleged Tarmima (correction) in FIR is dated 15.1.2014 whereas untraced report has been moved by the police in the court of ACJM, Amritsar and the same was accepted on 11.10.2013 and complainant Pintu Kumar has made the statement that he agrees with the untraced report and has no objection if the same is accepted . So the question of correction of FIR after untraced report was accepted by the trial court, does not arise. As such the entire case of the complainant is a made up story, as such cannot be believed. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 16.7.2013 Ex.OP2 as per terms and conditions of the policy Ex. OP3, so there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion we have come to the conclusion that complainant No.1 is the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-02-BX-6378 which he got insured from the opposite party vide policy No.31120100002451. As per complainants's version , complainant No.2 Pintu Kumar was going on the insured motorcycle on 28.5.2013 from village Kotla Khurd towards Kathunangal and he stopped the motorcycle on the kacha berm of canal Kotla Khurd (Khushipur) and left the motorcycle on the road to pass urine when two persons on another motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-18-N-8004 came there. They left their motorcycle and took away the motorcycle of the complainant, as per the version narrated by the complainant No.2 Pintu Kumar in the FIR Ex.C-3. The complainant in this FIR has categorically stated that he left/parked the motorcycle on the road with ignition key in the motorcycle i.e. unlocked and he went away to pass the urine when two unknown persons on another motorcycle bearing No. PB-18-N-8004 came there and they left their motorcycle there and took away insured motorcycle of the complainant. All this shows that the complainant has not taken the proper care while parking the motorcycle on the road which is required from a prudent person because he left the motorcycle in unlocked condition with ignition key in the motorcycle. As such the complainants have violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainants has not lodged any complaint with the higher police authorities that the FIR has been wrongly recorded or that he inadvertently stated to the police that the ignition key was left in the motorcycle when Pintu Kumar parked the same on the road till the said case has been finally decided by the court on 11.10.2013 vide order Ex.OP5. The police of P.S. Kathunangal submitted the untraced report with the Ilaqa Magistrate i.e. court of Addl. CJM,Amritsar where the statement of complainant No.2 Pintu Kumar was recorded on 11.10.2013 which is Ex.OP4 in which the complainant himself has stated that he agrees with the untraced report and has no objection if the same is accepted by the court. Resultantly the court of Addl. CJM,Amritsar accepted this untraced report vide order dated 11.10.2013 Ex.OP5. The complainant stated that he got the FIR corrected from the police vide report dated 15.1.2014 from the police, copy of which is Ex.OP7 in which he got recorded that he inadvertently recorded that he left the ignition key in the motorcycle when he parked the same on the road to pass urination, in the area of village Khusipur . This plea of the complainant is not tenable because the FIR was recorded on the statement of complainant No.2 Pinto Kumar Ex.C-3 on 30.5.2013. The untraced report was already accepted by the police on the statement of the complainant i.e. with the consent of the complainant vide order dated 11.10.2013 Ex.OP5 thereby that case of FIR Ex.C-3 has been finally closed for all times to come. So question of making correction in that FIR on 15.1.2014 after its closure on 11.10.2013 by the competent court , does not arise rather it has been got made/ corrected by the complainant in-connivance with the police just to fill in the lacuna. Further the story propounded by the complainant No.2 Pinto Kumar is also not tenable because in the present complaint he has stated that he was attacked by those two assailants who came on motorcycle No. PB-18-N-8004 with knife and he was injured on his forehead and hand . But no MLR in this respect has been produced by the complainant in this regard. Further it does not find mention in the FIR Ex.C-3 that the complainant No.2 Pintu Kumar suffered any injuries. So the entire story propounded by the complainants is not believable and as such is not tenable. The opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainants vide letter dated 16.7.2013 Ex.C-11.
9. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
10. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
08.04.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
(Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
