MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

22.07.2024

1.       A complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that complainant is the owner of the vehicle Toyota Innova Car having registration no. HR55M 1577 duly insured with OP Ins. Co. vide policy no. 015220281600.

2.         On 04.11.2013 at about 06:30 PM the vehicle in question was robbed from Hyatt Hotel near passport office Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K Puram, New Delhi. The FIR in respect to the vehicle in question was filed vide FIR no. 418/2013 u/s 394/34 IPC with P.S R K Puram. The intimation of the robbery was given to OP Ins. Co. and the claim was lodged vide claim no. 620709900 with OP Ins. Co. On 11.04.2014, the OP Ins. Co. repudiated the claim in question by giving the reason that vehicle has been used otherwise then in accordance with the “limitation as to use” and as such the claim is not covered under the policy.

3.         It is alleged by the complainant that he had not violated any provision of the policy terms and conditions and has taken the reasonable care to safeguard the vehicle in question, however, unfortunately the aforesaid incident happened for which OP Ins. Co. is liable to indemnified. On various occasions complainant approached the officials of the OP Ins. Co. for reconsideration of his claim but of no use. Complainant also served legal notice dated 08.05.2014 upon OP Ins. Co. thereby calling it to reimburse the claim in question but all in vain. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the officials of the OP as well as the repudiation of the claim complainant approached this commission for redressal of his grievance.

4.         Notice of the complaint was sent to OP. OP filed its written statement thereby denying any deficiency in service on its part. It is further stated that the intimation of the alleged loss was received by OP Ins. Co. on 08.11.2013. After receipt of the information OP appointed an independent investigator to investigate the genuineness of the loss in question. During the investigation, as well as going through the contents of the FIR lodged by the complainant, it was found that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward when it was snatched by the miscreants.

5.         It is further stated that since the vehicle was hired by one Mr. Satish Jha for Rs. 1300/- for to and fro from Gurugram to Hotel Hyatt at the time of loss the claim was rightly repudiated as the complainant failed to take due care of the vehicle in question. Since the vehicle was registered as private vehicle and is being used in violation of the policy terms and conditions, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated as per the policy terms and conditions. It is further stated that the present complaint is nothing but the abuse of process of law, hence, dismissed with cost.

6.         Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the OP thereby reiterating the contents of the complaint.

7.         Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint.

8.         Complainant has placed on record copy of R.C, Insurance policy, FIR, repudiation letter dated 11.04.2014, copy of legal notice dated 08.05.2014 in support of his contention.

9.         Md. Azhar Wasi Head North Zone claim filed evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP. OP counsel has placed on record copy of repudiation letter, copy of investigation report dated 24.03.2014, copy of final report, copy of MLC, copy of claim closure letter in support of its contention.

10.       During the pendency of the present complaint case, the vehicle in question got recovered and as such the complainant after obtaining the permission of this Commission filed the amended evidence by way of affidavit thereby incorporating the new facts in respect to the recovery of the vehicle in question.

11.       Despite opportunity neither the complainant nor the OP filed their respective written arguments.

12.       We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Dharmender Kumar and Sh. Manoj Kumar counsel for OP. During the course of the arguments the complainant declared that he has sold the vehicle in question to one Sh. Jasvir Singh on 15.01.2018. He has also placed on record the copy of the delivery receipt in respect to the sale of the vehicle in question to one Sh. Jasvir Singh.

13.       It is argued on behalf of complainant that firstly the OP Ins. Co. arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the complainant and even after recovery of the vehicle the OP Ins. Co. failed to assess the loss of the damage to the vehicle in question as well as its valuation, hence, complainant is entitled for entire IDV of the vehicle in question besides other reliefs.

            On the contrary it is argued by OP counsel that firstly the complainant has never lodged any claim in respect to the vehicle in question after recovery. Secondly, the complainant has sold the vehicle in question to one Sh. Jasvir Singh on 15.01.2018 during the pendency of the present complaint case that too without obtaining the permission of this commission, hence, complainant ceased to be consumer and as such the present complaint is not maintainable and be dismissed with cost.

14.       We have carefully gone through the complaint as well the entire record and found that admittedly the complainant had filed the present complaint in respect to the robbery of the vehicle in question and denial of the claim by the OP. However, during the pendency of the present complaint case the vehicle got recovered and as per the averments in the additional evidence by way of affidavit of the complainant at para 11 the complainant got released the vehicle in superdari from P.S R.k. Puram. Thereafter, the complainant had not lodged any claim in respect to the damage of the recovered vehicle with OP Ins. Co. as such the liability of the valuation of the loss as well as its reimbursement cannot be fastened on OP Ins. Co.         Admittedly, the complainant had sold the vehicle in question to one Sh. Jasvir Singh on 15.01.2018 during the pendency of the present complaint case that too without  obtaining the permission of this commission.

15.       In view of the above facts and circumstances of the present complaint case we are of the considered opinion that since the complainant has filed the present complaint in respect to the non receipt of the theft claim of the vehicle in question and since the vehicle got recovered during the pendency of the present complaint case the cause of action for filing the present complaint case got ceased and as such the relief claim cannot be granted. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the present complaint, the complainant also sold the vehicle in question without obtaining the permission of this Commission hence, complainant ceased to be consumer and as such the present complaint is not maintainable and dismissed.

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 the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   22.07.2024.

Sanjay Kumar                   Nipur Chandna                                Rajesh

                 President                               Member                                     Member