Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).
Complaint No. : 06/2017.
Instituted on : 11.04.2017.
Decided on : 18.10.2019.
Sabbir S/o Dena, R/o Village Sultanpur, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. SCO 6, Payal Cinema Sector-14, Gurgaon through Branch Manager through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 14 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
MS. URMIL BENIWAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Nasir Hussain, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the complaint that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing No. HR-74A-2946 Engine No. 31C63315930 Chassis No. MAT448078D3C05258 and registered with registration authority of Mewat and that the above said vehicle insured with opposite party vide policy No.010077181600 valid from 18.04.2013 upto 17.04.2014 and the insured declaration value of the vehicle is Rs.23,75,000/- as mentioned in policy and that unfortunately on night of dated 22/10/2013 at about 9:30 p.m. Driver Israil was going from Rajasthan to village Sunnari. When he reached nearby Village Gawarka, he parked the vehicle within premises at safe side and went to call the cleaner of the vehicle in his village and when they both came back together, they did not find the insured vehicle over the place, where parked by Israil, thereafter, they did not find the insured vehicle over the place, where parked by Israil, thereafter, they both enquired about the insured vehicle over the place where parked by Israil, thereafter, they both enquired about the insured vehicle from neighbours and tried to search the vehicle but all in vain and that on 23/10/2013 driver Israil reported the matter to Police Station Tawru etc but the police official did not lodge the complaint ultimately. Israil filed the complaint under Section 379 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Nuh, and requested for registration of case under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. upon the Court order police of P.S. of Tawru lodged the complaint F.I.R No. 519 dated 20/12/2013 under Section 379 of IPC against the culprit but the police official unable to trace the vehicle in question till date and that complainant informed the opposite party about the theft of the vehicle by unknown person on dated 23/10/2013 and also on 25/10/2013 thereafter he also sent a registered letter dated 06/01/2014 regarding the theft of the insured vehicle to opposite party but the opposite party has not release the insurance amount despite several requested and linger on the matter by one pretext and other and that complainant is ready to complied all the formalities and ready to supply the document which required for the purpose of disburse of the compensation amount, and asked the opposite party to get transfer the registration certificate in their name but the opposite party failed to release the insurance amount despite several requested made by complainant and that there is complete and uter negligence on the part of respondent by not releasing the compensation amount, despite several requested. It is clear case of neglizance on the part of respondent by keeping salient event after receipt of information and other documents and that it is apparent and clear from the conduct of respondent and keep silence by them even after receipt of the information and receiving the alternative contract number and other documents regarding insured vehicle. Hence, this complaint with prayer to direct the respondent to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- alongwith cost and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of incident till its realization of amount to the complainant and any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper also be granted to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to respondents. Respondents in their reply has submitted that the complainant himself has not complied with the specified agreed terms and conditions of the subject Insurance Policy. He is not only guilty of violation of specific terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy but is also guilty of violation of specific provisions of the Law of the Land. Consequently, his claim was repudiated and he was duly informed vide letter dated 03.02.2015 and that the real facts of the case are that under the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy, the complainant was imperatively duty bound to give notice in writing to the Police and the respondent Co. immediately upon the occurrence of any loss leading to any claim. But, in the present case, the complainant neither informed the Police immediately and nor inform of the Co. immediately upon the alleged theft of Dumper No. HR-74A-2946. It is submitted that the Police was informed about the alleged theft dated 22.10.2013 only on 20.12.2013 for the first time after a delay of 59 days. The respondent Co. was also informed very late only on 26.12.2013 for the first time after a delay of 65 days. It is submitted that immediately on receiving the intimation of claim under the policy on 26.12.2013, the answering respondent asked the complainant/insured vide letter dated 27.12.2013 to submit the specified documents including the original sets of keys. And, an independent investigator M/s Vikaas Kumar & Associates were appointed for investigation in the case. He contacted the insured and requested him to supply the requisite documents including the original keys of the vehicle and arrange meeting with his driver Israil and cleaner Deenu to verify the alleged theft incident and the alleged place of theft. But, the complainant/insured submitted that he had submitted the documents to his agent/consultant and in spite of promise, did not arrange the meeting with his driver and cleaner till the last. The said investigator also wrote two registered letters dated 10.06.2014 & 14.08.2014 to the complainant/insured, but, he did not submit the documents nor submits the original keys of the vehicle. Ultimately, the said investigator submitted his report dated 26.08.2014 of non cooperation of the complainant/insured and about the delay in reporting the matter to the police and the Co. Copies of letters dated 27.12.2013 and letters dated 10.06.2014 & 14.08.2014 and investigators report dated 26.08.2014.As per the case of the complainant it is quite clear from the contents of FIR, the vehicle was left un-attended, un-guarded, without any proper safeguard, in open, even without lock, on a road in night hours at 9.30 PM. during winter season. (It may please be noted that as per FIR it is not the case of the complainant that the said Dumper was locked at the time of theft). From all these facts, it is crystal clear that the complainant had not properly safeguarded the vehicle as he was required to do under the terms and conditions of the subject insurance policy. It is totally wrong and denied that Israil reported the matter to the police station. Tauru on 23.10.2013 or the police official did not lodge the complaint as alleged. In fact, the matter was never reported to the police and when there had been substantial delay in not reporting the matter, then, in order to cover up the inordinate delay, a complaint was filed on false and fabricated grounds, which even is contrary to the contents of the present complaint under reply. It is wrong and denied that the vehicle could not be located as alleged. The answering respondent was informed only on 26.12.2013 for the first time after a delay of 65 days. In the end he prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant closed the evidence after tendering the documents Mark P-10 to Mark P-12.
4. Learned counsel for the resondent closed the evidence after tendering the affidavit Ex. RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 & R-2.
5. Arguments heard and file perused.
6.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced on: 18.10.2019 (Rajbir Singh Dahiya)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).
(Urmil Beniwal)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).
