Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Surjit Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is registered owner of one Motor Vehicle Car Make Mahindra Scorpio, with Chassis No.71104, Engine No.11539, registered with the Registering Authority, District Transport Office, Amritsar with Registration No.PB-02-AZ-5006. This vehicle was purchased by the complainant for valuable consideration of Rs.9,62,545/- vide Sale Invoice No. 20173 dated 10.03.2008 from Universal Motors Amritsar. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant for his personal and family use as his private vehicle. Satpreet Singh Bedi son of Sh.Sarabjeet Singh Bedi, resident of Anand Avenue, Amritsar is having personal knowledge of the facts of this complaint, and is appointed as special attorney by the complainant for purpose of filing and prosecuting of this complaint and to make depositions etc. As such, the present complaint is being filed on behalf of the complainant by his attorney Satpreet Singh Bedi. During the period 8.3.2009 to midnight 8.3.2012, said car of the complainant was insured with Opposite Party vide comprehensive policy bearing No. 404400/31/11/6100005438, on payment of premium of Rs.30,640/-. As such, the complainant is consumer in respect of insurance services of the Opposite Party qua the above said vehicle and is hence competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. On 9.9.2012, the vehicle in question of the complainant was taken by one family friend of the complainant namely Satpreet Singh Bedi son of Sarabjeet Singh Bedi. Said Satpreet Singh Bedi parked this car outside his them residence Flat No.B-179, Gujjrawala Town, Part-I, Model Town, Delhi. On the next following day i.e. 13.9.2012 at about 6.30 A.M. said Satpreet Singh Bedi found the said car missing from its place where it was parked during the night. Said car has been stolen by some unidentified person during the night of 12-13 September, 2012 at Delhi. FIR No. 245 dated 13.9.2012 was lodged with Police Station, Model Town, in North West Delhi by Satpreet Singh Bedi. Satpreet Singh Bedi informed the Manager of Opposite Party at its Regional Office in New Delhi on 14.9.2012. A claim for compensation for loss of the said car was lodged by the complainant with Opposite Party vide theft claim No. 61/210/12. During the process of investigations of the claim, concerned offices/ staff of the Opposite Party has been demanding various documents, keys, remotes, police reports which were all provided to concerned officials of the Opposite Party as per demand from time to time by the complainant. The claim form duly filled was submitted by the complainant to the Opposite Party, keys of the car, remotes of the car, copy of FIR with translated copy, non traceable report, slips of the Toll Plaza and all other relevant documents were provided by the complainant to Opposite Party. During the investigation process various enquires were raised by the Opposite Party which were satisfied with reasonable explanation by the complainant. The complainant had received a letter dated 23.7.2010 from Opposite Party seeking explanation as to why only one key was delivered by the complainant to Opposite Party and bank statement, service of vehicle records, English version of the FIR and Notary attested copy were demanded by Opposite Party for settlement of the claim of the complainant. The complainant submitted all these particulars, with documents and forms, remotes of the car, and explanation for inability to submit the other original key of the car on account of damage of the key due to its breaking. The Opposite Party had made faulty verification regarding passing of the vehicle from Toll Plaza by giving wrong dates, which fact was thereafter got verified by the complainant and the requisite information regarding crossing the Toll Plaza was also furnished to Opposite Party by the complainant. Despite completion of all formalities and furnishing documents, records, information, cooperation on the part of the complainant, the Opposite Party has failed to settle the claim of the complainant till date despite repeated requests and reminders. Even a notice under registered post was also served upon the Opposite Party by the complainant thereby requiring the Opposite Party to settle the claim of the complainant, but the Opposite Party has failed to settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant has sought the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-

a)       Opposite Party may be directed to settle the claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- of insured value of the vehicle in dispute.

b)      Opposite Party may kindly be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of causing undue hardship, harassment, financial constraints, deprivation of the vehicle resulting into inconvenience in family and personal life on account of failure of the Opposite Party to provide efficient service in settlement of the claim.

c)       Opposite Party be directed to pay interest on the claim amount at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of lodging the claim till realization of the claim amount.

d)      Costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs may kindly be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not within time because as per the version of the complainant, the vehicle in question was stolen during the night of 12-13 September, 2012 and whereas the present complaint was filed by the complainant on 17.9.2015 much beyond the stipulated period of limitation and as such the present complaint merits dismissal on this simply score only; that the present complaint is not legally maintainable because the impugned claim in question was repudiated by the Opposite Party vide repudiation letter dated 24.3.2014 and whereas the complainant has not challenged the repudiation letter dated 24.3.2014 and as such, the relief sought for is not entitled to the complainant and even otherwise the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands as the claim stands repudiated as stated above. Whereas this fact is guarded secret and the case set up by the complainant is that the claim has not been decided by the Opposite Party; that the complainant has suppressed and concealed the material facts from this Forum. It is pertinent to mention over here that perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case which is quite evident that in fact it is a transaction regarding the sale of vehicle in question by the complainant to Satpreet Singh Bedi and the alleged claim of the complainant is highly doubtful and is based on false and flimsy grounds. It is worth while to mention here that during the course of statement to investigator which Satpreet Singh Bedi gave the statement that the vehicle in question was taken by him from Surjit Singh complainant on 8.9.2012 as no train ticket was available on the way from Amritsar to Delhi and even intimation regarding the alleged theft was given by Satpreet Singh Bedi by way of describing the vehicle as his on vehicle and even at the time of lodging the rapat by the police he described the vehicle in question as his own vehicle and even in respect thereof various letters more particularly letters dated 23.7.2013, 3.1.2014 and 3.3.2014 were duly written by the Opposite Party to the complainant wherein certain queries were raised, but the complainant has miserably failed to give any proper and factual reply. It is stated that even the Opposite Party obtained report from the Highway Authority through its investigator under RTI Act in respect thereof a letter dated 23.8.2014 was duly written by the Highway Authority regarding the supply of information alongwith the report of Highway Authority regarding the supply of information alongwith the report of Highway Authority dated 22.8.2014 and from the perusal of the said report, it becomes quite evident that the vehicle in question was not crossed Plaza Mannawala and Dhilwan on 8.9.2012 much less the vehicle in question was brought to the service station of Universal Motors in respect thereof, letter dated 2.9.2014 was duly written by the investigator to the company confirming that the vehicle in question was not crossed the Toll Plaza i.e. Mannawala and Dhilan on 8.9.2012. Whereas the case set up by Satpreet Singh Bedi alleged attorney of the complainant was that the vehicle was taken by him from Surjit Singh on 8.9.2012 as no train ticket was available on the way from Amritsar to Delhi and whereas vehicle in question was allegedly stolen during the night 12-13 September, 2012 when it was in the possession of Satpreet Singh Bedi, and in respect thereof all the formalities were completed by Satpreet Singh Bedi only by way of describing the vehicle in question as his own vehicle as already stated in detail and as such, the case set up by the complainant is highly doubtful. So much so, even the present complaint has been filed by the complainant through some person Satpreet Singh Bedi as his attorney and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly after by way of writing various letters by the Opposite Party as mentioned above arrived at conclusion to repudiate the claim in question in respect thereof letter dated 24.3.2014 was duly written by Opposite Party to the complainant which is self explanatory and as such it cannot be inferred that there is any deficiency in service and mal practices on the part of Opposite Party and as such the present complaint merits dismissal with special costs being malafide; that the relief sought is not open to the complainant as the complainant has miserably failed to take due care and caution in order to safe guard the interest whereas as per the version of Satpreet Singh Bedi, the vehicle in question was parked on the road by him in front of his house on 12.9.2012 at about 10.30 PM and whereas the vehicle was found stolen at 6.30 AM as alleged and as such, it reflect the vehicle was left unattended on the road without care and caution and as such, it is a clear cut breach of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence the affidavit of Satpreet Singh Bedi Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of complainant Ex.CW2/A alongwith copies of other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Satish K.Sharma, Divisional Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP13 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record as well as written synposis of arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties.

6.       Ld.counsel for the opposite party has vehemently contended that the complaint is hopelessly time barred. It is pertinent to mention that case of the complainant is that the vehicle   was stolen during the intervening night of 12/13.9.2012 and it is the case  pleaded by the complainant that opposite party has not settled the claim as mentioned in para No. 7 of the complaint. But, however, present complaint has been filed on 17.9.2015 i.e. after a gap of two years from the date of cause of action. However, the prescribed limitation period to file the complaint is only two years as per Consumer Protection Act.

7.       It has further been contended that complainant has hot approached the Forum with clean hands. It is pertinent to mention that impugned claim has been treated as “No claim” by the opposite party and in this respect the complainant has duly been apprised vide registered letter dated 24.3.2014, copy whereof is Ex.OP2 on record while postal receipt regarding the dispatch of the letter accounts for Ex.OP3. Despite receipt of registered letter, the complainant  has taken false plea in para 7 of the complaint that claim has not been settled by the opposite party. Moreover, the complainant has not challenged the repudiation letter regarding treating the complaint  as “No claim” in the present complaint. Rather the complaint is based on false and concocted plea. It is important to mention that inspite of various letters duly written by the opposite party dated 23.7.2013 Ex.OP4, 3./1.2014 Ex.OP5 and 3.3.2014 Ex.OP6 , the complainant has miserably failed to give any reply to the aforesaid letters. The complainant has also miserably failed to give reply that the vehicle was taken to Delhi by Satpreet Singh Bedi on 8.9.2012.

8.       Not only that ld.counsel for the opposite party further contended that  it is worth while to mention that  the case set up by the complainant is that Satpreet Singh Bedi was not having any train ticket available on 8.9.2012 and as such vehicle in question was taken by him  for going to  Delhi. Even a statement was given by Satpreet Singh Bedi that he took the vehicle in question from Surjit  Singh on 8.9.2012  and he went to Amritsar by train. But no train ticket was available on the way back so he had taken the vehicle in question in order to come back to Delhi and the copy of the statement is Ex.OP11. Requisite information was sought by the opposite party under RTI Act from Toll Plaza Mannawala, Amritsar and in respect thereof the letter was received from National Highways Authority of India.. Copy of letter is Ex.OP7 and vide letter dated 22.8.2014 Ex.OP8, the specific information was given that the abovesaid vehicle was not crossed Toll Plaza i.e. Mannawala and  Dhilwan on 8.9.2012 and as such it becomes quite evident that  the case set up by the complainant is false on the face of it. It is worthy to mention that in order to wriggle out from the vital admission later on complainant tried to develop his case that he had gone to Delhi from some another side via Beas, but this was not the case set up by the complainant at the time of filing the present complaint  and the same reflects that the story set up by the complainant is based on falsehood. It is important to mention that even the present complaint has been  filed by Satpreet Singh Bedi from whose custody the vehicle was allegedly stolen at Delhi and as such it becomes quite evident that infact Surjit Singh complainant himself was not having any control and charge over the vehicle in dispute. As such just with a view to get wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the opposite party with ulterior motive the present complaint has been filed by Surjit Singh through his alleged attorney Satpreet Singh Bedi and  the false story has been set up that on 8.9.2012 vehicle was taken by Satpreet  Singh Bedi to Delhi as train ticket was not available.

9.       It has further been contended on behalf of the opposite party that opposite party was under obligation to process the claim after getting requisite  information and documents from the insured and even in the present case the complainant has miserably failed to give reply to the queries raised by the opposite party as stated above . More particularly vide letter dated 23.7.2013 Ex.OP4, dated 3.1.2014 Ex.OP5  and dated 3.3.2014 Ex.OP6 and as such opposite party rightly arrived at the conclusion to treat the claim as “No claim”. Since the claim of the complainant  is based on falsehood as false story has been set up that the vehicle was taken by the alleged attorney as he had gone to Delhi on 8.9.2012 as stated above and even otherwise as per the case set up by the complainant the vehicle was parked outside the house of attorney and during the intervening night the vehicle was stolen. It is stated that a person is under obligation to safeguard his interest and if the vehicle has been left unattended on the road during night time the same reflects that the complainant/his attorney has miserably failed to take reasonable care in order to safeguard his interest and as such even as per insurance coverage the claim was not payable. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances it becomes quite evident that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same may be dismissed accordingly.

10.     However, from the appreciation of evidence on record,  repudiation of the claim of the complainant  has not been made in accordance with law.

11.     The opposite party has contested the complaint by taking false pleas in the written reply and has also raised frivolous arguments in support of its case. Opposite party has alleged in its written  reply that the claim has been repudiated  on the grounds that  the vehicle in question  did not pass through the Toll Plaza(s) Manawala and Dhilwan on 8.9.2012 and that the vehicle was unattended on road on the night and that the vehicle was not got serviced from the authorized service centre and that the complainant was not having control and charge of the vehicle at the time of alleged theft. The stand taken by the opposite party for rejection of the claim is totally false and against the evidence on record of this case. Opposite party has wrongly asserted that the complaint is time barred. The cause of action for filing the claim arises when the claim is repudiated by the opposite party. In this case when there is no repudiation of the claim then it continues to arise until last correspondence in respect of the claim is made between the parties  and when the opposite party stops to deal with the claim. As per admitted facts of this case the opposite party has been writing various letters to the complainant which are dated 23.7.2013, 3.1.2014 and 3.3.2014. As such last correspondence with the complainant is made on 3.3.2014 on behalf of the opposite party which was replied by the complainant vide letter Ex.C-5. Even as per written statement of the opposite party, it is stated in para 3 of the preliminary objections at page 3  that opposite party obtained report from the Highway Authorities through the investigator under RTI Act  in respect of a letter dated 23.8.2014 regarding supply of information alongwith report of highway authority dated 22.8.2014 regarding passing of the vehicle from Toll Plaza. As such it is evident from the said letters dated 23.8.2014 and 22.8.2014 that the opposite party was processing the claim of the complainant even upto 23.8.2014. Otherwise also it is  the case of the opposite party that the claim was repudiated and the file was closed on 24.3.2014 , even if the same is taken to be true, the complaint filed  on 10.9.2015 cannot be termed to be without any limitation. Opposite party has also taken the plea that complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. Notice copy whereof is Ex.OP2 was never served upon the opposite party, whereas notice served upon the opposite party through the counsel for the complainant was not   replied by the opposite party. Letter Ex.OP2 dated 24.3.2014 was never delivered upon the complainant. Even no copy of Ex.OP2 was produced on record alongwith written reply as well as till the date the complainant tendered his affidavit regarding his evidence. It was only upon filing of an application by the complainant for amendment of the complaint to seek the relief of the taking additional plea of declaring ExOP2 as illegal, during the stage of evidence that the opposite party placed on record one letter of repudiation dated 24.3.2014 alongwith postal receipt which is actually dated 23.7.2013 which from the face of it appears to be tampered one. The copy of the alleged letter now produced during the proceedings of this case appears to be a  fabricated document . It is worth while  to mention over here that if as per  stand of the opposite party, the claim was repudiated on 23.4.2014 then what was the necessity of deputing a surveyor to visit the Highway Authority to obtain information of passing the vehicle in question through Toll Plaza at various points on the way from Amritsar to Delhi in the month of August 2014 i.e. about 5 months after repudiation of the claim. Vide Ex.OP7 the investigator namely Simarjit Singh Bawa , while acting as Investigator on behalf of the opposite party, obtained one letter dated 22.8.2014 Ex.OP8 from the Jalandhar-Amritsar Tollways Ltd, wherein it was mentioned that the subject vehicle  has not crossed  from their Toll Plaza i.e. Manawala and Dhilwan on 8.9.2012. Here it is pertinent to mention that said car  of the complainant was taken to Delhi from Amritsar via Mehta Road on 9.9.2012 and not on 8.9.2012 and the opposite party has obtained report in respect of vehicle passed through the Toll Plaza on 8.9.2012. It is also pertinent to mention over here that Sh.Satpreet  Singh Bedi had taken the car from  Amritsar to Beas via Mehta Road and Manawala Toll Plaza does not fall on the way to Beas from Amritsar-Mehta Road. This fact has been confirmed by said Satpreet Singh Bedi in his affidavit while appearing as CW2 which stands unrebutted. It is also pertinent to mention over here that the opposite party also appears to have tampered with the application regarding statement about theft of Scorpio car Ex.OP11 by forging thereon date of taking the car by Satpreet  Singh Bedi by mentioning date as 8.9.2012 while the facts remains that the car was taken from Amritsar on 9.9.2012 .In the FIR also date of taking of the car from Amritsar is mentioned as 9.9.2012. The fact remains that the opposite party has not made any effort to obtain the report from Toll Plaza of Dhilwan and Karnal regarding passing of the Scorpio of the complainant on 9.9.2012 nor  any proof thereof has been given despite the fact that the complainant had provided copies of transaction detail report of Jalandhar-Amritsar Tollways Ltd, at  Dhilwan Toll Plaza Ex.C-7 wherein time of entry of car registration No. PB-02-AZ-5006 is shown at 11:08:51  on 9.9.2012 and copy of this report was provided to the opposite party vide letter Ex.C-5. Further  the complainant had provided vehicle search report of Karnal Toll Plaza Ex.C-4 wherein it is also shown that the vehicle bearing registration No. PB-02-AZ-5006 passed through the Toll Plaza Karnal at 03:59:46 PM on 9.9.2012. Vide letter Ex.C-5 the complainant while replying letters dated 3.1.2014 and 3.3.2014 informed the opposite party that information received regarding passing of the vehicle from Toll Plaza is false and intimated about obtaining of authentic information and enclosed copies of Toll Reports Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-7  respectively with request to verify the same at the end of the opposite party . But opposite party took no action on this. The stand taken by the opposite party in letter  Ex. OP2 is self contradictory and against the record. Letter Ex.OP2 reads as under:-

“With reference to the above refer our previous letters dated 23.7.2013, 3.1.2014 and 3.3.2014 in which we stated that we have got the record checked from the National Highway Authority of India about the crossing of the vehicle to Delhi and we have been informed by the authorities that no such vehicle had crossed Toll Plaza on the given dates. It was also stated that the vehicle never got serviced by you from any authorized dealer as replied by you and it was only once serviced by you from some private garage at Jalandhar. Till date you have not replied to the said queries, therefore, your claim file is closed as “No claim” which please note.”

12.     On the other hand opposite party is alleging that its letters dated 23.7.2013, 3.1.2014 and 3.3.2014 were not replied by the complainant and at the same time, vide repudiation letter  Ex.OP2, it is mentioned that  “as replied by you and it was only once serviced by you from some private garage at Jalandhar”. The opposite party is twisting its stand as per its suitability to justify its wrong and arbitrary decision. Getting service of vehicle from authorized agency or private  garage has nothing to do with the theft of the car and it is the owner of the vehicle who has to see from where he can get better service with minimum charges and no one can dictate to the owner in this respect. Document Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-9 are self explanatory in this respect

13.     From the aforesaid discussion, it can be concluded that the claim of the complainant was treated to be “No claim” without any reasonable cause or excuse. It is not disput4ed that car in dispute was under Insurance coverage as per Insurance policy at the relevant time , copy whereof is Ex.C-3 on record. It is also proved on record that the car while being at Delhi was stolen on the night of 12/13.9.2012 and report to that effect was lodged with the police station Model Town in North West Delhi , copy of the FIR accounts for Ex.C-2. Claim was filed  by the complainant for payment of the Insurance amount to the tune of Rs. 5,25,000/- with the opposite party which has been treated as “No claim”  without assigning proper reasons. Grounds on which the claim has been treated as “No claim”  are found to be without any reasonable cause . As such opposite party is held to be deficient in service in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant. In our considered opinion  the complainant has been able to prove his case and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- i.e. insured value of the car on account of the loss in theft of Mahindra Scorpio car bearing registration No. PB-02-AZ-5006 filed by the complainant  alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till full and final recovery. Cost of litigation are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order . Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 30.08.2016

/R/