ORDER

28.06.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant is registered owner of DL 7CF 3976, Honda City and got issued insurance policy no.015221517201 valid for the period 01.12.2013 to 30.11.2014 and paid premium of Rs.9250/-. It is stated that unfortunately car was stolen and an FIR no.829/2013 under section 379 IPC police station Mangolpuri dated 19.12.2013 was got registered. It is stated that complainant lodged a claim for reimbursement having no.620726744 but same was declined vide letter dated 06.02.2014 to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant without assigning any valid reason. It is stated that OP insurance company failed to perform the services.
2. It is stated that OP has admitted that vehicle has been stolen but the only reason afforded that another set of keys have not been provided which is not a valid reason for repudiation of the claim. It is stated that complainant had also sent a legal notice dated 26.02.2014 but OP neither replied nor claim of the complainant settled.
3. The complainant is seeking direction against OP to pay Rs.2,54,412/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till realization, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards cost and pay Rs.22,000/- towards expenses incurred by the complainant.
4. OP filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objection that complainant has not disclosed true and correct facts and has not come before this hon’ble forum with clean hands. It is stated that as per statement dated 26.12.2013 the complainant at the time of alleged incident that is on 18.12.2013 at about 8.30 pm in the night was going to see his  ailing friend at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mangolpuri. It is further stated in the statement by the complainant that the tyre of the vehicle got flattened at T Block, Mangolpuri since he was under the influence of alcohol left the vehicle and went ahead by rickshaw to meet his friend at hospital. It is stated that complainant was driving the vehicle in a high speed, rashly negligently and without observing the traffic rules and regulations as he was under the influence of alcohol which cause the tyres of vehicle flattened and complainant left the unattended vehicle on the road side with its ignition key at the said place and went ahead to meet his friend.
5. It is stated that complainant returned at about 10.30 pm at the same place and found that vehicle was missing. It is stated that complainant in his statement categorically stated that he was under influence of alcohol when the vehicle had been reportedly stolen. It is stated that investigation took place and the complainant has shown only one ignition key of the vehicle and the same found unused, moreover, scratches were observed on the blade part of the key and plastic covering which shows that same was done deliberately to show as a used key. It is stated that this act of complainant shows that the vehicle was stolen with access to its key. It is stated that it clearly shows that the alleged theft happened due to complainant’s reckless act by which he left the vehicle unattended and this is the breach of condition no.4 of the Motor Insurance Policy.
6. It is stated that complainant has failed to act like a prudent and reasonable person by not leaving the vehicle unattended which directly resulted in theft. It is stated that as the complainant has not taken due care of his vehicle and not acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by OP vide its repudiation letter dated 12.03.2014. It is further stated that on checking records of the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, it was noted that no person by the name of Satish was admitted in the hospital on the said date. The copy of investigation report filed on record. It is stated that complainant made incorrect statement with malicious intention which is breach of declaration signed by complainant on the claim form. It is stated that complainant is liable to be dismissed.
7. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. However OP admit that complainant is the registered owner of vehicle no. DL 7CF 3976 and got insurance from OP for the period 01.12.2013 to 30.11.2014 and also paid Rs. 2054/-. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP, therefore, complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed in the complaint.
8. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint. It is stated that complainant was driving the vehicle in a very simple manner and observing all the traffic rules and norms and also not under the influence of any liquor. It is stated that if any alcohol is consumed by the complainant that was under permissible limits and the same has no relation with the theft of vehicle. It is stated that in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy nowhere it is stated that in case the theft has taken place and the owner/insured is under the influence of alcohol his claim shall not be passed merely on this ground. It is stated that complainant is entitled to all the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
9. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and in the affidavit contents of complaint reiterated. Complainant relied on copy of insurance policy Ex.CW1/1, copy of RC Ex.CW1/2, copy of FIR Ex.CW1/3, copy of repudiation letter dated 06.02.2014 Ex.CW1/4 and copy of legal notice alongwith postal receipt and AD card Ex.CW1/5 (colly).
10. The complainant also filed additional  evidence and relied  on copy of legal notice dated 26.02.2014 alongwith postal receipt and AD card Ex.CW1/6 (colly). The complainant also filed untraced report of police dated 06.02.2014 alongwith charge sheet.
11. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mohd. Azhar Wasi Head North Zone Claim. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP relied on statement of complainant Ex.OPW1/1, copy of investigation report Ex.OPW1/2, copy of repudiation letter dated 12.03.2014 Ex.OPW1/3 and copy of investigation report Ex.OPW1/4.

12. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as OP.
13. We have heard Sh. Raghav Goel proxy for Sh. Manoj counsel for OP. Neither counsel for complainant nor complainant appeared to address oral arguments despite ample opportunities. However we have gone through the written arguments filed by complainant.
14. It is admitted case of parties that complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle no. DL 7CF 3976 Honda City and got issued insurance policy from OP having valid period from 01.12.2013 to 30.11.2014. It is further admitted case of the parties that the car was stolen on 19.12.2013 and an FIR no.829/2013 registered u/s 379 IPC Police Station Mangol Puri.  As per OP complainant had given a statement dated 26.12.2013 wherein he disclosed that on 18.12.2013 at about 8.30 in the night he was going to see his ailing friend at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Mangol Puri and tyre of the vehicle got flattened at T-Block Mangol Puri and he was under the influence of alcohol and left the vehicle at the  road and went to hospital by taking a rickshaw. The complainant although denied these facts, however, it is admitted in the rejoinder that if alcohol was consumed by complainant which was under the permissible  limit and has no relation with the theft of the vehicle.
15. The OP insurance company got investigated the intimation of claim through AA Insurance Services who submitted investigation report after detailed investigation. During investigation as per report it was also brought on record that as alleged by complainant no friend named Satish was admitted at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital when enquiry was made on his given mobile no.8750267589. These facts established that complainant concealded the true and correct facts from  this commission and also from OP insurance company. The facts established that complainant breached the condition no.4 of the insurance policy and also the declaration signed by complainant. It is further pertinent to mention here that the complainant submitted only one ignition key with the OP which is deliberately scratched to show that it is a used key. In these circumstances OP insurance company established that the repudiation letter dated 12.03.2014 is just, fair correct and legal.
16. On the basis of above observations and discussions present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
17. 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  28.06.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                                             NIPUR CHANDNA                   

       PRESIDENT                                                         MEMBER