Haryana

StateCommission

A/1199/2014

Vinay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                    

                                                First Appeal No.           1199 of 2014

                                                Date of Institution:       16.12.2014

                                                Date of Decision:         16.02.2016

 

Vinay Kumar r/o Village and Post Office Asodda, District Jhajjar, Haryana.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited through its Managing Director/Principal Officer, Sundaram Towers, 41 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai-600014.

 

2.      M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Ryder House, Ground & First Floor, Plot No.136, Sector 44, Gurgaon-Haryana.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

         

Present:              Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

                             Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for the respondents.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated October 28^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed. 

 

2.      Vinay Kumar-complainant was owner of car No.DL2FDN-0008.  The year of manufacture of the car was 2004.  The car was insured with M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited-opposite parties (Insurance Company) for the period June 08^th, 2009 to June 07^th, 2010.  On June 05^th, 2010 the car was stolen.  As per the complainant, he filed an application before Incharge, Police Post, Tikri, Delhi to register a case of theft but the Police did not.  He filed complaint before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi on February 28^th, 2011, that is, after eight months.  On the directions of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi FIR No.66 under Section 379 IPC was registered in Police Station Mundka, West Delhi on April 30^th, 2011.  He lodged his claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated.

3.      The Insurance Company filed reply.  It was pleaded that the case of the complainant was not genuine on two grounds (1) that FIR was registered after ten months of the alleged theft and (2) that the complainant purchased the insurance policy from June 08^th, 2009 to June 07^th, 2010 whereas it was already insured with United India Insurance Company Limited with effect from April 19^th, 2009 to April 18^th, 2010.  There was no justification in purchasing the second policy while the earlier policy was still in existence. 

4.      Counsel heard. Record perused.

5.      To prove that complainant filed application to Police Post, Tikri stating his car was stolen on June 05^th, 2010, he placed reliance upon photocopy of the application Exhibit C-3.  The original copy thereof per the complainant, which he has placed before this Commission today, is Annexure C3/A.  Annexure C3/A purported to be the original application signed by the complainant has cuttings and the cutting made thereon are in the ink pen whereas rest of the contents of the application is the photocopy of the document Exhibit C-3.  The matter does not rest here.  The seal of the Police Post, Tikri, Delhi purported to have been affixed by the Police authorities on June 05^th, 2010.  There is overwriting and cutting on the date as well.  Exhibit C-3 is the photocopy of Annexure C3/A except that there are some changes made with the fountain pen and it bears the original signatures of the complainant.  From the perusal of Exhibit C-3 and Annexure C3/A, it is crystal clear that these receipts have been prepared to show that Police of Tikri was informed on June 05^th, 2010.  Had the car been stolen on June 05^th, 2010, it was the prime duty of the complainant to lodge the complaint with the Police which he did not.  No evidence worth the name has been led to prove that Insurance Company was informed immediately after the occurrence. 

6.      Under these circumstances, the order passed by the District Forum was justified and requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 16.02.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK