Complainant M/s.J.S.Grover Stone Crusher, through its Proprietor

Sanjay Grover  has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to pay the insurance claim of Rs.18,55,923/- alongwith interest, not less than @ 18% P.A. alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a TATA LPK 2518 Truck Tipper bearing registration no.PB-06-L-2307, in the year of 2010, bearing chassisNo.MAT448091A3B02289 and Engine no.01B62843930 which was financed with the SREI Equipment Finance Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata. Who got it insured with the opposite party vide policy no.154400/31/-9/6300020725, for the period from 3.2.2010 to 2.2.2011 for Rs.18,55,923/-. On 7.1.2011, at about 10.00PM his driver Dayal Singh parked the said Truck Tipper near the turning of Truck Union at Saili Road, Pathankot, after getting the same properly locked but in the morning of  8.1.2011 at about 7.00 AM, his driver found that said truck was not there, where it was parked at night by him. He informed him who enquired about the vehicle but the same was not found despite best efforts. Intimation about the theft of the said truck was given to the police who enquired the matter with the similar case of FIR no.04 dated 9.1.2011 for the offence u/s. 379 IPC at PS Div. no.2 Pathankot. The opposite party and the said SREI Equipment Finance Pvt.Ltd., were also informed regarding the theft of the vehicle and lodged the claim. Required documents were also supplied to them by him for getting the claim but after passing of two years the same was not settled. He time and again approached them but they linger on the matter on one or the other pretext. Instead of settling the claim they issued the letter for supplying of required documents and the same were again submitted to them through their agent. After supplying the required documents the opposite party has not settled the genuine and lawful claim. In this way, he has been humiliated and harassed by the opposite party. He has further pleaded that earlier complaint of the said vehicle u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, titled as “Sanjay Grover vs.National Insurance Company Ltd and (2) SREI” bearing complaint no.70 of  2013, filed on 7.3.2013, has also been filed by the Sanjay Grover the Prop. Of firm M/s.J.S.Grover Stone, Crusher, in his individual capacity, in this Forum, which has been decided in favour of the said Sanjay Grover vide order of this Forum dated 23.10.2013. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. the opposite party preferred the First appeal against the supra decision of this Forum vide First appeal no.319 of 2014, instituted on 26.3.2014, titled as “National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Grover and others”. Whereby the said appeal filed by the opposite party was accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer, without prejudice to the right of the firm M/s.J.S.Stone Crusher, to file the complaint before appropriate Forum, if so desired, vide order dated 2.12.2016.Hence this complaint.

3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who  appeared through its counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; the complaint of the complainant is not within limitation. The alleged theft took place on 07.01.2011 and the limitation for filing the two years period has already been elapsed and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed; the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in services on the part of opposite party. On merits, it was submitted that there is delay in the registration of the FIR at the police station and timely information was not given to the police, which is the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Further as already stated no documents have ever been sent by the complainant till today and as such no question of deciding the claim arises. The complaint is premature. It is the complainant who is at fault and failed to fulfill his part of obligation. Opposite party has further submitted that if the ld.Forum comes to the conclusion that there is any liability of the insurance company then in that case it is only as per policy terms and conditions. Further, the complainant in that case may also be directed to execute the relevant documents in favour of the insurance company to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in their name and further be directed to provide the NOC from the Financer.All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Janak Raj Assistant Manager N.I.C. Ex.OP1 and copy of order of SCDRC Pb, Chandigarh Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.

6.      We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments as duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some of the documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the delay/non-settlement/closure and subsequent repudiation of the insurance ‘theft-claim’ pertaining to alleged-theft on 07.01.2011 of the complainant owned insured Truck-Tipper having an IDV of Rs.18,55,923/- at the hands of the OP insurers. As per the complainant’s version the insured vehicle has been owned in the name of the proprietor-ship complainant firm of which he has been the proprietor and has thus filed his first complaint # 70/2013 titled Sanjay Grover proprietor, as partly allowed on 23.10.2013. The OP insurers aggrieved with the forum’s orders filed appeal before the honorable Punjab State Commission at Chandigarh (on the grounds of non-privity of insurance contract with the then complainant proprietor) who set-aside the forum’s orders on 02.12.2016 with however providing liberty to the truck-owning firm (present complainant) to avail of the desired legal remedy and thus prompted the present complaint.      

7.       We observe that the OP insurers somehow could not raise its objection of ‘absence of privity of insurance contract’ with the complainant during the course of the first complaint proceedings before the forum but did re-raise the same as its lone logic/objection during the appeal as has been duly accepted by the honorable state commission. We also find that the OP insurers have presently raised only two objections (to the instant complaint) one that of time-barred limitation and the other of ‘non-filing’ of the requisite claim documents.

8.       We find that the OP insurers have pleaded that the insured vehicle had been stolen on 07.01.2011 whereas the present complaint stood filed on 08.11.2017 i.e., very much delayed to the statutory period of two years. We are not convinced with this misconceived plea of the OP insurers since the present complaint has been in an integral continuation of the first consumer complaint that stood filed qua the limitation and other statutory norms. Further, we find that neither any fresh insurance theft-claim nor any fresh claim-documents need be filed in addition to those already filed with the OP insurers during the course of the first consumer-complaint. However, the OP insurers have validly requisitioned the transfer-letter authority and loan liquidation certificate from the complainant to facilitate disbursement of the impugned claim (presently) to ensure settlement/ payment of the impugned theft-claim in conformity with the other issues qua the related policy as well as the IRDA guidelines. However, the OP insurers herein have re-opened the issues that had already attained finality in adjudicatory vide the forum’s orders but to the misinterpretation (as said at its best) at the OP insurers’ end and that presently rakes them up to an adverse statutory award. Of course, the OP insurer shall be at its liberty to take disciplinary action against its Divisional Manager/delinquent staff as per its own discretionary prerogative for causing harassment and delay in settling the insurance claim.         

9.       We observe that the complainant has sufficiently and satisfactorily proved all the contents of his allegation-contented complaint vide his deposition along with evidentiary support-documents. On the other hand, the OP insurers have duly admitted the impugned claim-repudiation but have miserably failed to prove the pleaded issue of ‘limitation-rights’ over the stolen insured Truck that already stood adjudicated with its pleaded ground of non-privity of insurance contract as basis of non-settlement. The OP insurers have produced affidavit (Ex.OP1) that however does not tangibly support the impugned repudiation.

10.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and

thus ORDER the titled OP insurer to pay the impugned theft-claim @ sum

assured i.e Rs.18,55,923/- alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of loss

i.e 7.1.2011 of vehicle till actual realization of the payment besides to pay him

Rs 25,000/- as cost and compensation (for having caused delay and harassment)

within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders. Of course,

the OP insurer shall be at its liberty to take disciplinary action and/or to claim

reimbursement or otherwise recover the award-amount from its delinquent staff

as per its own discretionary prerogative. Copy of this order be also sent to the

Head Office of the OP for expediting the compliance and for information and

necessary action.

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

       (Naveen Puri)

                                                                       President

ANNOUNCED:                                               (Jagdeep Kaur)

August, 03 2018.                                           Member                                 

*MK*