Punjab

Sangrur

CC/619/2014

Bhura Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S. Nandpuri

15 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    619

                                                Instituted on:      14.11.2014

                                                Decided on:       15.04.2015

 

Bhura Singh son of Nand Singh, resident of Village Loha Khera, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     New India Assurance Company, Cinema Road, Nabha, Distt. Patiala through its Manager.

2.     New India Assurance Company, Branch Office, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Manager.

3.     New India Assurance Company, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 through its General Manager.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant    :               Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Bhura Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a  new Discover motorcycle Bajaj bearing engine number 09683 chassis number 84774 having registration number PB-13-V-6519 at Sangrur on 25.1.2010 and the same was got insured from OP number 1 under cover note number 400372.  It is further averred that the vehicle in question was insured upto 1.2.2011.

 

2,             The grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle in question was stolen on 30.12.2010, when the same was parked near Sunami Gate Sangrur and after that the complainant tried to  find the motorcycle, but the same was not found. It is further averred that the complainant went to the police station City Sangrur to give the information about theft of the vehicle, but the police told to find it for 1-2 days, but the same was not found. Ultimately, the complainant gave information in this regard to the police of City Sangrur on 4.1.2011 by registered post and intimation was also given to OP number 1 alongwith the documents.  It is further averred that the complainant also filed a consumer complaint which was dismissed by this Forum on 6.6.2012 and against that order the complainant went in appeal before the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, which was decided on 4.7.2014 directing the Ops to settle the claim within a period of 30 days on the receipt of the copy of the order and it was further ordered that if the OPs repudiates the claim of the complainant, he can approach the District Forum with a new complaint challenging the repudiation of the claim. It is further averred that the OPs sent a letter dated 5.8.2014 along with a cheque of Rs.12,000/- and the claim case of the complainant was closed as no claim. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay him an amount of Rs.40,565/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, it is admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the OPs for the period from 2.2.2010 to 1.2.2011 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy for an amount of Rs.40,565/-. It is further stated that after receiving the intimation dated 4.1.2011 regarding theft of vehicle, the OPs appointed Parabhjot Singh Sahni, independent surveyor and loss assessor duly appointed by IRDA, who submitted his report dated 5.9.2011. It is further stated that the Ops sent a registered letter dated 10.1.2011 to the complainant for submitting the documents mentioned therein, but the complainant did not produce the copy of FIR and driving license of Kuldeep Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, who was driving the motorcycle at the time of alleged theft.  It is stated that the said driver Kuldeep Singh was not having a valid driving license, as such it is stated that the Ops have no liability to pay the claim.  It is stated that the complainant has failed to produce the key of the motorcycle in question.  It is stated that the motorcycle in question was not ever stolen. It is further averred that the complainant intimated the OPs after five days of occurrence of theft of the vehicle, which is a clear cut breach of the terms and conditions.  It is stated that the OP legally and rightly closed the file of the complainant as ‘no claim’ vide letter dated 5.8.2014. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.             

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of application, Ex.C2- copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-3 copy of application, Ex.C-4 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-5 copy of letter, Ex.C-6 copy of affidavit, Ex.C-7 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C-8 coy of order dated 6.6.2012, Ex.C-9 copy of order dated 4.7.2014, Ex.C-10 copy of letter of OP, Ex.C-11 copy of driving license, Ex.C-12 key of motorcycle and Ex.C-13 affidavit and closed evidence.                                                     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.Op-1 attested copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-2 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP-3 copy of survey report, Ex.OP-4 copy of vehicle inquiry report, Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-6 affidavits and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant got the vehicle in question insured from OP number 1 for the period from 2.2.2010 to 1.2.2011 vide policy, a copy of which on record is Ex.OPs/1. 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the OPs have wrongly and illegally repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant as the motorcycle in question was stolen on 30.12.2010 when the same was parked near Sunami Gate, Sangrur.  It is further averred that the complainant intimated the Ops about the theft of the motorcycle on 4.1.2011vide registered letter, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-1 and postal receipt (dated 7.1.2011) is Ex.C-2.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the OPs did not settle the claim despite submission of all the documents to the OPs. The complainant as such filed a complaint before this Forum which was dismissed by this Forum  on 6.6.2012. Aggrieved by this order dated 6.6.2012, the complainant went in appeal  before the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission and vide order dated 4.7.2014, the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission set aside the order dated 6.6.2012 and directed the Ops to settle the claim of the complainant within a period of 30 days of receipt of copy of order and further OPs were directed to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.8000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.4000/-.  After receipt of the order dated 4.7.2014, the OPs vide letter dated 5.8.2014, Ex.C-10 repudiated the claim of the complainant only on the ground that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy and also paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- as ordered by the Hon’ble State Commission. 

 

8.             Now, before us the only question for determination is whether the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy or not by not lodging the FIR/DDR immediately with the police.  We have very carefully perused the whole case file, but failed to find out any copy of FIR/DDR on record to show that the same was recorded with the police. The learned counsel for the complainant has referred Ex.C-6 a Photostat copy of affidavit of the complainant alleging that the complainant submitted the same with the police for recording DDR/FIR, but we are unable to accept the same as it is not the copy of DDR/FIR.  However, if it is assumed that the complainant intimated the police on 4.1.2011 about the theft of the motorcycle in question, then again the same is not helpful to the case of the complainant as the complainant was duty bound to intimate the police about the theft of the vehicle immediately.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not intimate the police immediately on 30.12.2010 when the theft of the vehicle took place at Sunami Gate, Sangrur.   The learned counsel for the OPs has further contended that the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the Ops has cited Kulwant Singh versus United India Insurance Company Limited IV(2014) CPJ 350 (NC), wherein in the petitioner/complainant  intimated the police about the theft of vehicle after three days of incident. The Hon’ble National Commission has held that such a delay can be fatal as within three days the vehicle could have been driven long distance even across border of country or could have been dismantled and sold to scrap dealer. It is further held that the petitioner had acted against the interest of the insurer and this is a violation of the insurance policy.  In the present case also, the vehicle was stolen n 30.12.2010, but the complainant allegedly intimated the police on 4.1.2011 (after a gap period of five days).  In the circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in dismissing the present complaint on this score alone.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 15, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member