Haryana

Karnal

CC/292/2015

Mahinder Pal S/o Om Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

D.R. Goyal

14 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.292 of 2015

                                                         Date of instt. 30.11.2015

                                                         Date of decision:14.12.2017

 

Mahinder Pal aged about 42 years son of Shri Om Singh resident of House no.13, Shakti Puram, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Having its Divisional office at Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

                                         

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

              Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member

             

 Present  Shri D.R. Goyal Advocate for complainant.

               Shri  Karambir Mandhi Adv. for opposite party.

               

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that he got insured his Scorpio jeep bearing registration no.HR-45-B-2115 from OP, vide insurance policy no.26130/31/2015/ 8936, valid from 2.12.2014 to 1.12.2015. On 26.3.2015 his father driving the said vehicle reached at Bus Stand Karnal then two unknown persons met them and hired the said vehicle for going to Kanpur. His father intimated that he has been going to Kanpur by taking two passengers. After reaching Kanpur his father called him and told that both the unknown persons were gunda type of persons. After that his father neither heard nor seen by anybody. Lateron, it has been revealed that his father has been murdered by said unknown person and qua this fact an Fir no.129 dated 26.2.2015 was registered under section 302, 201, 34 IPC in Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. He gave intimation to the OP about the said incident. The dead body of his father was recovered but police could not trace out the abovesaid vehicle despite various efforts made by the police.  He filed the claim with the OP and completed all the formalities, but OP did not pay any claim and lastly refused to pay any compensation. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; complainant has not come under the definition of consumer; premature; estopped by his own act and conduct and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that the RC of the vehicle is for “Private Car” and not for “Commercial Car”. It is specifically mentioned on the first page of the insurance cover note:

        “Limitations as to use:

        The policy covers u se of the vehicle for any purpose other than) (a) Hire or Reward (b) Carriage of goods (other than samples or personal luggage, (c) Organized racing (d) Pace making (e) Speed Testing (f) Reliability Trials (g) Use in connection with motor trade.”

 

It is admitted fact by the complainant himself that the said vehicle was being plied for “Hiring” and was being taken to Kanpur by the father of the complainant as “Driver” at the relevant time. As per FIR no.129 dated 26.2.2015 Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, the alleged incident was of 25.2.2015, whereas in this para the complainant has clearly mentioned the date of alleged incident “26.3.2015”. There is altogether great “contradiction” between the two alleged dates/incidents. It has further been submitted that on receipt of the claim of the complainant the investigator was duly appointed for investigation and during investigations it has been revealed that the father of complainant was plying the said vehicle for “commercial use” for hiring purposes to other persons and during the same process, he was allegedly taking two persons to Kanpur, who had hired the said vehicle from the Tax Stand, Karnal. The driver of the vehicle cannot comply with rules/instructions of the taxi stand. Father of complainant had not made any entry in the “Register” meant for the purpose in the Taxi Stand. It has further been submitted that the driving licence of the father of complainant has not been placed on record by the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 22.9.2016.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of R.S.Bahlan Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and closed the evidence on 16.12.2016.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             It is admitted case of the parties that complainant was the registered owner of the Scorpio Jeep no.HR-45B/2115 and the said vehicle was insured with the OP, vide policy no.26130/31/2015/8936 valid from 2.12.2014 to 1.12.2014.

7.             The case of the complainant is that on 26.2.2015 the vehicle was driven by the father of the complainant when the same was hired by two unknown persons from Karnal for Kanpur and after reaching Kanpur, his father telephoned to complainant but thereafter the father of the complainant was neither heard nor seen by anybody. Lateron, it revealed that father of complainant was murdered and the vehicle was snatched. A case FIR no.129 dated 26.2.2015 under section 365 IPC was registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. It is further the case of the complainant that intimation was given to the OP, and the dead body of the father of complainant was recovered but the vehicle was not traced by police. The complainant alleged that the claim for vehicle has been wrongly denied by the OP.

8.             According to OP, the vehicle has been used as Taxi i.e. on hire basis, whereas the Registration Certificate (RC) of the vehicle is for “Private Car”. The final report i.e. untraced report has not been submitted by the police as the case was still under investigation. It is further contended by the OP that it has been specifically mentioned on the first page of insurance cover note under the head to “Limitations as to use:

        The policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than (a) Hire or Reward (b) Carriage of goods (other than samples or personal luggage, (c) Organized racing (d) Pace making (e) Speed Testing (f) Reliability Trials (g) Use in connection with motor trade.”

As admitted by the complainant himself that the vehicle in question was used on hire basis, so  the claim of the complainant is excluded from the cover of the insurance policy as per clause (a) mentioned above. It is further contended that the complainant gave no intimation to the OP rather filed the claim after a considerable delay and on receipt of claim, the OP appointed Shri R.N. Sharma as investigator, who submitted his report dated 18.4.2015, the copy of the same is Ex.R-5. It is further contended that the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle against the Rules, against the terms and conditions of the policy and against the terms and conditions of State Transport Authority. It is further contended that even the Driving Licence of the driver has neither been supplied to the investigator nor placed on the record by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant sent the incomplete claim form i.e. the blank claim form and inspite of letters dated 16.6.2015, 27.7.2015 and 10.8.2015 written by the OP, the complainant has not submitted the duly filled in claim form. So, the claim of the complainant was closed on the above grounds vide letter dated 16.9.2015.

9.             On perusal of cover note Ex.R-1, it is clear that the claim of the complainant is not covered under the policy as the same is excluded by clause (a) of the “Limitation as to use”  because it is admitted by the complainant himself that the vehicle in question  had been used on hire basis. It is also clear from the cover note that the policy has been taken by the complainant as Private Car Package Policy and the complainant has used the said vehicle on the hire basis i.e. against the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has not produced any evidence on the file vide which it can be proved that the complainant had given the licnece of the driver to the investigator or the insurance company or that the complainant had submitted the duly filled in claim form as demanded by the OP vide letters mentioned above or that the police has submitted the untraced report. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that the requirements made by OP has been fulfilled  and also failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OP. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP has committed no mistake in filing the claim of the complainant.

10.           It is pertinent to mention here that today i.e. 14.12.2017 at about 1.30 p.m. after the dictation of the order, the learned counsel for complainant moved an application for additional evidence for tendering untraced report. The untraced report attached with the application is not from the court but the same is from the Police.  In this regard we can rely upon authority cited in 2014 (2) CLT page 120 titled as Abhey Singh Vs. Magma Leasing Ltd. & others, wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that the application moved by the opposite party no.1 at the fag end of the trial of the complaint i.e. at the time of arguments was not entertainable. The said authority is fully applicable to the present case. In view of the above authority, the application for additional evidence of complainant is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.

11.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:14.12.2017

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                   (Anil Sharma)             

                        Member