Delhi

North

CC/177/2019

M/S. CHETAK SUPPLY CHAIN PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATINAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAM N. SHARMA

04 Mar 2024

ORDER

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.:177/2019

 

M/s Chetak Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd.

Village Shikhopur, Manesar,

Gurgaon, Haryana-122051                   …                                   Complainant

 

                                                          Vs

 

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

1204, Bahadur Garh Road,

Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006.                …                                    Opposite Party

 

ORDER

   04/03/2024

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that:-      

a.  the complainant firm is a registered owner of vehicle bearing Regd. No. HR- 38-T-1362 and renewed its insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle from the Respondent vide their policy No. 360202/31/2016/6300001680 for the period of one year from 31.12.2016 to 30.12.2017 for a sum insured of Rs. 11,66,400/- on payment of premium  of Rs. 36,744/-. The policy was in renewal of previous year policy.

b.  the OP issued only a computerized 1 page document which does not contain any terms and conditions attached thereto nor the same were supplied to complainant at any point of time. A copy of policy as provided by OP has been filed with the complaint as Annexure C-1.

c.  Unfortunately on 27.01.2017, the aforesaid vehicle was found stolen from the parking place Sector-2, Gurgaon by the driver of the said vehicle, who intimated the manager of the Company about the incident. After searching the vehicle here and there, an FIR of the same was lodged with Police Station Manesar, Gurgaon vid FIR No.0040 dated 28.01.2017.

d.  the intimation about the theft /loss of the vehicle was also lodged by the Complainant with the OP who after receipt of intimation deputed an investigator M/s Lakshman Dass Arora & Associates to assess the loss. The deputed investigator visited the complainant & sought various document and collected all necessary documents as required by him viz Invoice, Insurance Policy, Copy of GR, RC, Fitness, Claim form, FIR, Untrace Report, Statement of various persons including the driver the driving license of the named driver and might have submitted his report without discussing the same with the complainant. A copy of documents provided to surveyor has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-2 (Colly).

e.  the complainant's claim was not settled by OP till 23.01.2019 in spite of various reminders verbal as well as written to the OP Claim settling Office nor any details for the assessment of loss or information about the surveyors report was ever provided to the complainant till date.

f.   In spite of supplying all the documents and the explanation given about the change of keys of the vehicle as well various statements confirming the identity of key maker, the OP rejected the same on false frivolous and illegal grounds taking shelter of Condition No. 5 of the policy which were not part of the contract nor were the same supplied to the complainant by OP. Even the policy of insurance does not contain any condition which states that the information of change of lock of the vehicle was mandatory to be informed to insurer. The lock was changed in 2016 whereas the vehicle was stolen in 2018 and investigation was done in 2018. The vehicle was stolen and not recovered as confirmed by Police in its FIR and Final Repot which has been verified by OP's investigator. A copy of the statements of various persons is annexed as Annexure C-3 (Colly) with the complaint.

 

2.       It has also been alleged by the complainant that non-settlement of the claim of the complainant for 24 months is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP as per the Consumer Protection Act. The insured vehicle was stolen on 27.01.2017, the intimation of the claim was given immediately, FIR was lodged, and all required documents as well as explanation from various persons were provided to the OPs investigator who must have confirmed the loss in his report but no report has been provided to complainant as per IRDA Rules. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed praying that the OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,66,400/- along with interest thereon 12%, Rs.2,00,000/-on account of mental agony, pain and suffering, and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being the cost of the present litigation.

 

3.       The Complainant has enclosed copies of insurance policy, letter of investigator Laxman Dass Arora & Associates, undated letter of complainant addressed to the Investigator L D Arora, claim form, R.C., fitness Certificate, driving license of driver, FIR, Untraced Order, Statement of various persons, and repudiation letter dated 23.01.2019 alongwith statements of various persons (Total 32 pages from page 6 to 37) with the complaint.

 

4.       Accordingly, notice was issued to the OP and in response, the OP has filed its reply stating that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the eyes of law in as much as the same is based on false and concocted story. The averments in the complaint is baseless and only with the object to extract money from the insurance company. It has been contended that the complainant never intimated to the respondent company nor lodged any FIR about the loss of the original keys of the Insured Vehicle and further the documents placed on record with respect to the place/shop wherefrom the duplicate keys stated by the complainant to have been prepared, has also been found to be fake and fabricated. The Complainant has completely breached the policy conditions and the filing of the present complaint is merely to illegally avail insurance amount by creating a false case. It is submitted there is a number of judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission and the Hon'ble Supreme Court where it has been held that in case of the loss of original keys not being intimated to the insurance company and an FIR not being registered with respect to the same, the insured cannot claim the insured amount at the loss of the vehicle.

 

5.       It has further been stated by the OP that the insured vehicle of the Complainant was stolen on the night of 24-27/-1/2017 from the place of Honda Parking, Sector-2, Manesar. After receiving information of the insured vehicle being stolen, the OP had appointed investigator who furnished its report on 10.10.2017 stating that the complainant supplied the duplicate keys of the insured vehicle at later stage along with the Bill No. 181 dated 12.11.2016 against the change of lockset, issued by M/s Deepak Auto Mobile.

 

6.       It has also been contended by the OP that when the original keys of the insured vehicle lost by the complainant, no any FIR was lodged against the loss of the original keys nor the respondent company was informed about the same. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was required to lodge FIR against the loss of the original keys and complainant was also required to intimate the same to the insurance company. The said Bill No. 181 dated 12.11.2016 against the lockset change stated to be issued by M/s Deepak Auto Mobiles was supplied by the complainant to the investigator M/s Laxman Dass Arora & Associates vide letter dated 13.09.2018. The OP has also appointed Sh. Kanwar Singh, Insurance Investigator for the verification of the Bill No. 181 dated 12.11.2016 against the lockset change issued by M/s Deepak Auto Mobiles and Sh. Kanwar Singh, Insurance Investigator verified the Bill No.181 dated 12.11.2016, stated to have been issued by M/s Deepak Auto Mobiles, by going to the place mentioned on the Bill but found no shop namely Deepak Auto Mobiles at and near the address mentioned on the bill and , therefore, opined that the Bill No. 181 dated 12.11.2016 against the lockset change issued by M/s Deepak Auto Mobiles appeared to be fake/fabricated documents.

 

7.       The OP has further contended that there is difference in the driver statement and FIR regarding the date of theft. The OP, after perusing claims filed by the complainant and the investigation report and report on verification of address of Bill No.181 dated 12.11.2016 against the lockset change issued by M/s Deepak Auto Mobiles, had written letter to the complainant on 28.11.2018 seeking response within 7 days of the receipt of the letter as to why its claim not be repudiated as the Bill No.181 dated 12.11.2016 against the lockset change issued by M/s Deepak Auto Mobiles found to be fake/fabricated documents. The OP did not receive any response to its letters dated 28.11.2018 and 06.12.2018 and consequently vide letter dated 23.01.2019, the respondent company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the valid ground of the complainant violating the condition no.5 of the policy. The provisions of condition no. 5 of the policy has been reproduced as under:-

“The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss of damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all time free and full access to examine the vehicle insured or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or break down, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle insured be driven before the necessary repairs are effected, any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's own risk".

 

8.       The OP has also filed copies of the Certificate of Insurance Cum Policy No. 360202/31/2016/6300001680 for the period of one year from 31.12.2016 to 30.12.2017, Theft Investigation Report dated 10-10-2017 by the investigator Laxman Dass Arora & Associates, letter dated 19.11.2018  of the investigator Sh. Kanwar singh with the verification report of Bill No.181 dated 12.11.2016 against the lockset change issued by M/s Deepak Auto Mobiles, letter dated 28.11.2018 &  dated 06.12.2018  and repudiation letter dated 23-01-2019 issued by the OP  to the complainant (Total Pages 12) with the reply.

 

9.       The Complainant has filed rejoinder & evidence affirming the allegations levelled in the complaint and the OP has also filed Evidence contesting its stand elaborated in the reply justifying the repudiation of the claim of complainant.

 

10.     Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence put forth by the complainant & OP and it has been observed that the complainant has disputed that repudiation of the claim only on the ground the OP had issued only a computerized 1 page document which does not contain any terms and conditions attached thereto nor the same were supplied to complainant but has also admitted that the policy and the period referred in this complaint was in renewal of previous year policy . The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Biman Krishna Bose Vs. United India Insurance Ltd.  2001(6) SCC 477 is also relevant wherein it has been held that Renewal of an insurance policy means repetition of the original policy. The relevant observations are reproduced:-

“A renewal of an insurance policy means repetition of the original policy. When renewed, the policy is extended and the renewed policy in the identical terms from a different date of its expiration comes into force. In common parlance, by renewal, the old policy is revived and it is sort of a substitution of obligations under the old policy unless such policy provides otherwise. It may be that on renewal, a new contract comes into being, but the said contract is on the same terms and conditions as that of the original policy.”

 

11.     Since the complainant failed to prove that no terms and conditions were supplied at the time of purchasing the Insurance policy initially, the dispute raised by the complaint has no relevance in this matter. Since it is a renewed policy, it is obvious that the complainant was very well aware about the terms and conditions of the policy according to which the claim has rightly been repudiated by the OP on the undisputed material fact of replacement of lock set was never intimated  to the OP by the complainant. The complainant has also referred the violation of IRDA Rules by the OP without elaborating the relevant provisions of rules which have been violated and therefore, we are unable to examine such unsubstantiated alleged violations in this case.

 

12.     In view of these observations, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed without any costs.  

 

13.     Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                         HARPREET KAUR CHARYA

Member                                                                           Member       

                                                DCDRC-1 (North)                                                          DCDRC-1 (North)   

                                                           

DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

President

DCDRC-1 (North)