Delhi

East Delhi

CC/163/2016

VIJENDER KR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI RAM GENERAL INS - Opp.Party(s)

27 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 163/16

 

Shri Vijender Kumar Singh

S/o Shri Jai Pal Singh

R/o H. No. 53, Kadam Farm

Joharipur, Delhi – 110 094                                         ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Off.: 506-507, 5^th Floor

Pragati Deep Building Office Complex

Near Nirman Vihar, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 091    

 

2. M/s. Cholamandalam Investment

and Finance Co. Ltd.

Off.: Plot No. 6, Pusa Road

Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005                                   …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 31.03.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 27.09.2019

Judgement Passed on: 30.09.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

           This complaint has been filed by Shri Vijender Kumar Singh against M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) and M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.        The facts in brief are that on 06.07.2013, the complainant Vijender Kumar Singh got insurance policy no.101046/31/14/001635 with an IMD Code no. 0681for Tata Truck bearing no. HR 55M 3998 Model no. 2518, Chassis no. 729148 and engine no. 2583110 for total IDV amount of       Rs. 9,25,000/- on payment of a premium of Rs. 35,908/- to M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) who issued the cover note on 06.07.2013 which was valid till 06.07.2014. 

The complainant, on 27.01.2014, parked his vehicle near his house at Ghaziabad.  He visited the parking area in the evening and found it parked safely.  On 28.01.2014, at about 7.30 a.m., when the complainant went to take the vehicle, he was surprised to see that the vehicle was not there.  He searched everywhere, but could not found any trace.  He immediately made a report at Police Chowki at Tulsi Niketan, Sahibabad, Ghazaibad.  He also reported about the theft of the vehicle to M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) as well as M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) over the phone.  M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) received the claim of the complainant vide claim no. 10000/31/14/C/048127. 

On 21.02.2014, police station Sahibabad has finally lodged a FIR after completing the preliminary investigation and declared the vehicle stolen by some unknown persons.  On 05.12.2014, M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) sent their surveyor/investigator viz. Shri Rajesh Jain who investigated the claim and also accompanied the complainant to Police Chowki Tulsi Niketan for detail verification.  The complainant provided him full co-operation and handed over him the two original ignition keys of the vehicle alongwith all the papers and documents.  The insurance surveyor of the company promised to send the copy of the report and receipt of the received keys and documents within a weeks’ time.  However, he did not provide the same. 

On 26.02.2016, he received an email from insurance company whereby they informed the complainant that insurance claim of                Rs. 9,25,000/- has been repudiated on the ground that the complainant was found guilty of gross negligence in reporting/intimating the incident to the police authorities belatedly on 05.12.2014 and parked the vehicle in unsafe and unauthorized parking. 

It has been stated that M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.   (OP-1) has repudiated the legitimate claim of the complainant arbitrarily without considering the facts which were reported at the police station.  Thus, it has been stated that M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.   (OP-1) was deficient in his service as well as guilty of unfair /restrictive trade practices by repudiating the claim without any just reason. 

It has further been stated that OP-2 have failed to co-operate the complainant in the police proceedings with whom the vehicle was insured which was also informed.  Thus, the complainant have prayed for directions to M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) to release the claim amount of Rs. 9,25,000/-; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental pain and agony and Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of litigation.       

3.        In reply filed on behalf of M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1), they have stated that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation; claim of the complainant was rejected through letter of dated 26.03.2014 and the complaint was filed in November 2016 i.e. after a period of two years; the FIR has not been lodged immediately; there was a delay in intimation to the insurance company and lodging the FIR; the complainant has failed to provide the relevant documents to the insurance company; he has left the key inside the vehicle as well as left it unattended, thereby committed an act of gross negligence in taking care of the vehicle.  He has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  The claim was denied for violation of terms and conditions of the policy.  Other pleas have also been denied.

           In the reply filed on behalf of M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. (OP-2), they have stated that an arbitration award has already been passed against the complainant by the sole arbitrator on 07.10.2014.  They have denied other facts of the complaint.      

4.        Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) and WS of M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. (OP-2), wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.        In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited copy of cover note / insurance certificate (Ex.CW-1/A), copy of written complaint dated 28.01.2014 filed before the Police Chowki Tulsi Niketan, Ghaziabad (Ex.CW-1/B), copy of FIR no. 192/2014 dated 21.02.2014 (Ex.CW-1/C) and copy of repudiation letter dated 26.03.2014 (Ex.CW-1/D).

           In defence, M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) have examined Shri Rama Raman, Legal Officer, who have also deposed on oath.   He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.

M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) have examined Shri Sunil Griwan, AR of OP-2, who have deposed on oath.   He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS. 

6.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) and have perused the material placed on record.  No one has appeared on behalf of                 M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. (OP-2).   The first and foremost argument which has been advanced on behalf of               M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) has been that the complaint was barred by limitation as the same was filed beyond the period of two years.  He has further argued that there was a delay of intimation in lodging the FIR and to the insurance company.  He has also argued that there was gross negligence on the part of the complainant as he did not take care of the vehicle and left the same unattended.  He has left the keys inside the vehicle. 

           On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have stated that complaint was not hit by limitation as the same was filed within the period of limitation itself.  He has further argued that there was no delay in intimation to the insurance company and lodging the FIR.  He has also stated that there was no gross negligence on the part of the complainant. 

           During the course of arguments, counsel for M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) have stated that an award has been passed against the complainant, the execution of which has been pending in the civil court.  This fact has also been admitted by counsel for complainant.  Though, counsel for M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) have not appeared to argue, but passing of the award have also been stated in their reply filed.  They have categorically stated in their reply that the award was passed on 07.10.2014. 

           The first and foremost point which have to be looked into has been as to whether the complaint was within the limitation.  If a look is made to the record, it is noticed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on 26.03.2014 as stated in the reply of M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1).  The complaint has been filed on 31.03.2016.  The date which has been taken by M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) for the purpose of limitation has been taken of the date of letter i.e. 26.03.2014, but this letter has been dispatched on 29.03.2014.  When the date of dispatch has been 29.03.2014, the fact of having received this letter by the complainant has not been averred by M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1).  On the contrary, they have taken the plea that the complaint was filed in the month of November 2016 which is contrary to the record as the complaint was instituted on 31.03.2016.  Therefore, there is no force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel for M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) that the complaint was beyond the period of limitation.

           Coming to the other arguments that there was delay in intimation to the insurance company as well as lodging of FIR and gross negligence on the part of complainant, these pleas having bearing on merit are not discussed as during the course of arguments, it has come on record that an award has been passed against the complainant, execution of which has been pending in the civil court.  If the record is perused, it is noticed that an award has been passed by the sole arbitrator Shri G. Ashokapathy, Advocate, Chennai on 07.10.2014.  This award has been passed on 07.10.2014 in the matter between M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. (OP-2), claimant/creditor and Mr. Vijendra Malik.            Mr. Reeta Malik and Mr. Narender Kumar – respondents whereby claimant was held entitled to receive jointly and severally amount claimed from the respondents.

           Further, respondents were directed jointly and severally to forthwith pay to M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., the claimant, a sum of Rs. 9,13,028/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from 14.03.2014 till realization.  A cost of Rs. 3,000/- was also directed to be paid to the claimant.  The execution of this arbitrator award has been stated to be pending in the civil court which has been put as sine-die as stated by counsel for complainant and OP-1.  The complainant has instituted the complaint in the district forum on 31.03.2016 without disclosing the arbitration award passed against the complainant.  The fact that an arbitration award was passed against the complainant and in favour of    M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) which fact have been stated by them in their reply, the complainant have not approached this forum with clean hands. 

           It is the fundamental principle of law that he who approaches the court must come with clean hands.  By not disclosing the passing of the award against the complainant, the complainant have invoked the jurisdiction of this forum which he should not have invoked.  Thus, his complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed with cost of   Rs. 10,000/- which be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority of East District, Karkardooma Courts within 30 days. 

           Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                       (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

      Member                                                                    Member

     (SUKHDEV SINGH)

President