ORDER

20.05.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. Brief facts of the present case are that complainant had purchased vehicle bearing no.DL 4C AE 2908 (Toyota Innova) from one Sh. Dinesh Kumar on 01.04.2013 and vehicle was insured with OP vide policy no.1316522311001467 and valid from 28.06.2012 to 27.06.2013 and insurance was for Rs.3,08,500/-. It is stated that complainant applied with the concerned registration authority for transfer in his name on 02.04.2013 and deposited the necessary charges alongwith documents. It is stated that on 08.04.2013 the vehicle was transferred  in the name of complainant but registration certificate incorporating the change of name was not delivered to complainant. The complainant got the said registration certificated collected from the concerned authorities.
2. It is stated that the said vehicle was stolen on 14.04.2013 and a complaint lodged with PS Mayur Enclave on 15.04.2013 and FIR registered bearing no.132/2013. It is stated that despite investigation the police could not trace the vehicle and on 21.06.2013 police filed untraced report before the court of Ld. ACMM North West Rohini Courts Delhi and same was accepted by the court. It is further stated that complainant had lodged claim with the OP and submitted no objection certificate from the previous owner who was having the insurance certificate in his name for disbursal of theft claim in the name of complainant.
3. It is stated that complainant paid several visits to the office of OP but the claim was repudiated vide its letter dated 08.08.2013 on the ground that complainant was not having insurable interest at the time of taking of policy as well as at the time of loss. It is further stated that the complainant got the registration certificate on 12.05.2013 and vehicle was stolen on 14.05.2013, therefore, OP is liable for the loss suffered by the complainant. It is further stated that repudiation of the claim is illegal, arbitrary and against the norms of IRDA and amounts to gross deficiency of services on the part of OP, therefore, present complaint filed.
4. Complainant is seeking direction against OP to pay sum of Rs.3,08,500/-, compensation for monetary loss, pain and agony of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation charges and other expenses of Rs.22,000/-.
5. OP  filed WS and taken preliminary objection that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as insurance policy is  in the name of Sh. Dinesh Kumar. It is stated that there is no privity of contract between complainant and OP insurance company. It is further stated that the  policy no.1316522311001467 never issued to complainant but it was issued to Sh. Dinesh  Kumar and complainant never paid any consideration to OP, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. It is stated that the vehicle was purchased by complainant on 15.03.2013 and information about the purchase was given for the first time on 18.04.2013 when information of theft of vehicle was given. It is further stated that complainant in para 2 falsely alleged that he had purchased the vehicle on 01.04.2013 whereas the vehicle was purchased by complainant on 15.03.2013. It is further stated that statement of complainant and Sh. Dinesh Kumar were recorded by investigator appointed by the company to clarify and fortify the purchase of the vehicle which is not on 01.04.2013 but on 15.03.2013. The copy of statement filed on record. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. It is stated that the intimation about alleged theft of the vehicle was not given in terms of policy conditions and there is  a violation of condition no.1 of the policy as intimation was given on 18.04.2013 after delay of four days. The OP  referred the judgment of Rang Lal (Deceased) VS. Manager UIIC Revision Petition No.1362 of 2011 decided on 01.09.2011 (NC). It is further stated that complainant cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own wrongs, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The OP referred the judgment of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Muni Mahesh Patel IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC).
8. On merit all the allegations are denied. It is stated that vehicle bearing no. DL 4C AE 2908 was insured with OP company subject to terms and conditions in the name of insured Dinesh Kumar. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. As per record no replication filed by complainant to the WS of OP.
10. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint. Complainant relied on copy of policy Ex.CW1/1, copy of FIR Ex.CW1/2, copy of untraced report/order Ex.CW1/3, copy of registration certificate of vehicle Ex.CW1/4 and copy of repudiation letter dated 08.08.2013 Ex.CW1/5.
11. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Mohit Nagar Deputy Manager Legal Claims. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP relied on copy of statement of complainant Rajesh and Dinesh Kumar Ex.RW1/A and RW1/B, copy of policy Ex.RW1/C, copy of investigator report Ex.RW1/D and copy of repudiation letter Ex.RW1/E.
12. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as by OP.
13. We have heard Sh. Dinesh intern for Sh. Anil counsel for complainant. Neither counsel nor AR of OP appeared. However, we have gone through the written arguments filed by OP.
14. The complainant alleged that he had purchased vehicle Toyota Innova having registration no. DL 4C AE 2908 from one Dinesh Kumar on 01.04.2013. The photocopy of insurance policy filed on record according to  which insured is Dinesh Kumar. The OP challenged the claim and taken the defense that complainant had purchased the abovesaid vehicle on 15.03.2013 not on 01.04.2013. The information  of purchase of vehicle first time given on 18.04.2013 when complainant informed about theft of the vehicle. The OP  relied on statement of Dinesh in this regard. The complainant has not filed on record any documents such as form 29-30 signed by both complainant and seller Dinesh Kumar. The statement of Rajesh Kumar and Dinesh Kumar taken by the investigator during the investigation. However the fact with regard to the theft of vehicle on 14.04.2013 is not disputed. The material on record established that the c has concealded the true and material facts from this commission with regard to date of purchase of  the vehicle. The OP established on record that vehicle was purchased on 15.03.2013. It is also established on record that there is no insurable interest exists in the part of Dinesh Kumar whose name the insurance policy within operation on the date of theft. It is further established that complainant informed the insurance company with regard to purchase of vehicle after about one month.
15. On the basis of above observation and discussion the repudiation letter dated 08.08.2013 is legal and justified. Hence present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
16. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  20.05.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER