BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                   Complaint No.: 250 of 2013.

                                                                   Date of Institution: 25.04.2013.

                                                                   Date of Decision:12.04.2017

Balbir Singh son of Shri Chhotu Ram, resident of H. Balbir No. 460, Vikas Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

                                                                      .….Complainant.

                                      Versus

National Insurance Company, having its Regional Office, II, S.C.O. 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh-160022 and one of its Branch Office at Bhiwani through Branch Manager, Bhiwani.

                                                                    …...Opposite Party. 

COMPLAINT U/S 12  & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -  Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

         Mrs. Sudesh, Member

         Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member

Present:-  Sh. V.P. Sangwan, Advocate for the complainant.

      Sh. M.L. Sardana, Advocate for OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased a  EICHER 10.95 E-1 HSD Canter Model 2004  from Mohan Tractors (P) Limited vide sale certificate dated 28.08.2004, which was financed by CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) Ltd. for Rs. 6,88,900/-.  It is alleged that the aforesaid vehicle was got insured with the OP company, vide insurance cover note 31 No. 207522 dated 17.08.2004 issued by Bhiwani Branch.  It is alleged that the aforesaid vehicle was found missing and he lodged the FIR No. 331 dated 13.09.2005 with police station City Bhiwani against the unknown accused person under Section 379 IPC.  It is alleged that he submitted that required documents for the settlement of the claim.  It is alleged that he visited to the OP many times but to no avail.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.

2.                On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  It is submitted that the complainant failed to supply the requisite documents.  It is submitted that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.   Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7.

4.                In reply thereto, the counsel for OP tendered into evidence documents  Annexure R1 to Annexure R-3.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He submitted that on the same cause of action a complaint was filed by the complainant before this District Forum.  Vide order dated 09.02.2010 passed by this District Forum the complainant was directed to submit the required documents to the OP and the OP was directed to settle the claim of the complainant.  He submitted that the complainant submitted all  requisite documents to the OP in the compliance of the said order dated 09.02.2010.  He submitted that the OP, despite request of the complainant did not pay the claim amount to him.  He submitted that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 28.08.2004 and till the date of theft on 10.09.2004, the complainant had not applied for the permit.  Therefore, the complainant could not submit the copy of permit to the OP and requested the OP to settle the claim of the complainant without permit.  Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the following judgments:-

I         National Insurance Company Limited Versus Sudarshan Kumar in Appeal No. 991 of 1997, dated 19.01.1999 of Hon’ble Punjab Commission, Chandigarh.

II       Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Pratima Jha II (2012) CPJ 512 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

7.                Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of reply.  He submitted that the complainant failed to supply the requisite documents including the permit.  He submitted that the complainant was driving the vehicle in the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such is not entitled to any claim.  He further submitted that the second complaint on the same cause of action is not maintainable.  He further submitted that according to the contents of FIR, ignition key of the vehicle was left inside the vehicle and the door of the vehicle were not locked at the time of the alleged theft.  The complainant has not taken the due care and was negligence.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant is not entitled for any claim in the theft of his vehicle.  The counsel for the OP referred the following judgments:-

I        United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Jarnail Singh IV (2016) CPJ 360 (NC).

II       New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Meenakshi Jarial II (2016) CPJ 53 (NC).

8.                We have examined the record of the case, carefully.  The material facts of the case are not in dispute.  Indisputably, the permit of the vehicle was not obtained by the complainant and nor applied  as on the date of theft of the vehicle.  Now the question arises whether the complainant, without having the permit of the vehicle in question, is entitled to get the claim of the vehicle for the theft.  The complainant himself has admitted that he has purchased the vehicle in question on 28.08.2004 and he has not applied for the permit of the vehicle as on 10.09.2004 when the vehicle was stolen from the premises of police station sadar, Bhiwani where it was parked.  The counsel for the OP has contended that as per FIR the ignition  key was left in the vehicle and the door of the vehicle was not locked at the time of alleged theft.  The complainant has produced the copy of FIR as Annexure C-4 but some part of the FIR is not legible and the OP has not produced any copy of FIR so the said contention of the counsel for the OP could not be verified from the FIR.

9.                Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, as reported in IV (2008) CPJ 1(SC), it has been stated that in the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane.  The Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.  The claim should be settled on a non-standard basis.  The factum of the theft of the vehicle in question is not disputed by the OP.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to settle and pay the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis at 75% of the insured amount of the vehicle.  The OP is directed to comply with this order within 90 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the OP shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum on the award amount till the date of payment. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 12.04.2017.                          

      (Rajesh Jindal)                           

President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Parmod Kumar)             (Sudesh)                        

                Member                    Member