Karnataka

Bijapur

CC/90/2013

Ahmad S/o Mohammadsab Hullur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch manager HDFC ERGO GENERAL Insurance Co.pvt - Opp.Party(s)

sri A.S.Inamdar

17 Dec 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VIJAYAPUR

DATE OF FILING 25^th  DAY OF OCTOBER 2013

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 90/2013

 

DATED THIS THE 17^th  DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016

 

01) Sri S.H. Hosalli                            -          President.     

                  B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

02) Smt.G.S. Kalyani                         -        Lady Member.

                 B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

COMPLAINANT   -

1

Raj Ahmad S/o Mohammadsab Hullur, Age: 30 Yrs, Occ:Lorry Business, R/o J.M. Road, Bagayat Galli, Special Power of Attorney holder, (in respect of Vehicle bearing No:HR-55 J-8234)   (By Sri. A.S.Inamdar,  Adv)

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTY  -

1

The Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. ERGO General Insurance Company Limited., First Floor, Virupakshrupa Opp. K.I.M. Main Gate, P.B. Road, Vidyanagar, Hubli-580021.    (By Sri. S.V.Hajeri, Adv)

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

Speaking through Smt. G.S. Kalyani, Lady Member.

 

 

 

This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (in short the “Op”) directing the Op to pay Claim amount of Rs.13,65,660/- with 18% interest from the date of stolen of said vehicle and directed to pay of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.

 

 

 

2)       The brief facts of the case are that:-

         

          It is contended that complainant is the special Power of Attorney Holder of the owner TATA Tipper Ten Wheeler bearing No: HR-55/J-8234 by name Shri. Dinesh S/o Shri. Ram Saroj R/o Usmanpur Delhi Dtd:08/11/2012 duly executed before the Notary, under the said Power of Attorney, the complainant has filed this complaint inrespect of said TATA Tipper bearing No:HR-55/J-8234 its Engine No:GRTAA/80HP90L62809117 and Chassis No:MAT44069193NI2265 duly by name TATA Tipper Ten Wheeler Make Tata LPK HYWA, Model-2009, insured in the Op company.  Under policy No:2315200168783701000, dated:20/12/2012 valid from 09/12/2012 to 08/12/2013.

 

3)       The said Vehicle brought from Delhi to Bijapur on 01/12/2012, on 08/12/2012 between 7-00 PM to 7-00 AM i.e. 09/12/2012. The said Vehicle parked normally at Rajashwari Dhaba Back side of open place on N.H. 13 near TATA Motors Bijjaragi Automobiles Indi by pass road, Bijapur. The said vehicle was stolen and in this regard complainant lodged the Police complaint at Adarsh Nagar, Police Station on 22/01/2013.  Under Crime No:7/2013.  The complainant contended that complainant earning through said vehicle Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/- by way of traffic business has to be around 40,000/- to 50,000/- per month.

 

4)       On 06/ 03/2013 complainant submitted claim application along with 3 witness to the Op under application No:3230012097302 through phone call but till today Op not settle the claim.  Despite of complainant has issued legal notice through advocate though Op received said notice Op neither reply the said notice nor settle the claim.  Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint, due to non settlement of claim complainant prayed for allow the complaint as prayed.

 

 

 

5)       After receipt of notice from this Hon’ble Forum Op appeared through their counsel and filed objections in the objections they contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is not come under Sec. 2 (1) © to (i) & (d) of the C.P. Act.  The alleged disputed cannot be called as Consumer dispute.  Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

 

6)       The complainant has filed this complaint on the base of Special Power of Attorney,  but he is not made the R.C. Holder/Insured as party, who is the necessary Party to the proceedings.  Complainant without approaching the Op suddenly approached this forum and as such the complainant itself is premature.

 

7)       As a Power of Attorney Holder from the owner of TATA Tipper Ten wheeler bearing No:HR-55/J-8234 by name one Dinesh S/o Sriram Saroj R/o Usmanpur Delhi, if the version of the complaint is true he could have approach the Branch office of the Op. with claim application in favour of Registered owner  instead of Power of Attorney Holder submits the claim form with three witnesses on 06/03/2013 in his name as per Police records complaint is filed on 22/01/2013 after a lapse of approximately one and half month delay.

 

8)       The Op submits that the claim form submitted by the complainant is registered vide its No:C230012097302 and deputed an independent investigator.  According to investigator pointed that policy is not covering the risk of the theft  Vehicle because the Policy No:2315200168783701000 for the period of 09/12/2012 at 00.01 hrs to 08/12/2013 at midnight.  The Op submits that Op company has issued a letter to the insured i.e. Dinesh Kumar on 18/11/2013 stating that claim has been repudiated as there is no insurable interest.  Moreover the Op submits that under the provisions of M.V. Act. U/S 150 Act 1988 and GR 17 of Indian Motor tariff which make it mandatory to transfer policy when the owner ship gets transferred.  The claim has been repudiated.  Hence, there is no liability on this Op, also there is delay of 43 days in lodging FIR and 53 days delay in intimating the Op company which indicates the malicious intention of the complainant to garner unlawful gains.  The contents of Para No: 7 are specifically denied by this Op. it is denied that though the advocate of complainant issued legal notice to Op, neither replied not comply, the Op. submits that the claim repudiated and informed to the registered owner on 18/11/2013 and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of Op. Hence reasons above stated the complaint of the complainant is kindly be dismiss with cost.

 

9)       Both the parties have filed their affidavits in support of their case the documents produced on behalf of complainant is marked as Ex. C-1 to 15 and Op Advocate produced 29 documents they are marked as Ex. Op-1 to 29 respectively.  Both side Advocates filed their written arguments.  Heard, the arguments on both side.  Now the points that arise for our consideration in deciding the case are:

           

1. Whether the Op has rendered deficiency in service to the   

complainant?

            2) Whether the complainant is entitled to relief as is   

                sought for?

            3) What order?

10)     Answer to the above points.

 

             1) Negative.

    2) Negative.

              3) As per Final order.

 

REASONS.

 

11)    Point No.1:-  There is no dispute inrespect of issuance of policy by the Op, company under insurance No:2315200168783701000 for the period of 09/12/2012 at 00:1hrs to 08/12/2013 at midnight this fact is also evidenced by a document  produced by the Op. at Ex Op No:12 & 13.

 

12)     As per the complainant on 01/12/2012 the said Tipper brought from Delhi to Bijapur  on 08/12/2012 between 7-00 PM to 7-00 AM i.e. 09/12/2012.  The said vehicle parked normally at Rajashwari Dhaba back side of open place on N.H. 13 Near TATA Motors Bijjargi Automobiles Indi by Pass road Vijayapur.  The said vehicle stolen and complainant was lodged complaint on 22/01/2013 at Adarsh Nagar Police Station under Crime No:7/2013.  According to complainant itself there was delay in lodging the complaint before police Station and claim form was submitted on 06/03/2013 and same was registered by Op under claim No:3230012097302 and complainant not mentioned any where in the complaint with respect that when the intimation was made to the Op about the theft of his vehicle.  Moreover after receiving claim intimation Op investigated by appointing independent investigator and investigator submits investigation fee bill i.e. Ex. Op No:3 & 4 investigation Report i.e. Ex. Op No:5.  According to investigator Policy is not covering the risk of the theft vehicle because the policy for the period of 09/12/2012 at 00:1 hrs to 08/12/2013 at midnight and also Op company has immediately issued a letter to the insured i.e. Dinesh Kumar on  18/11/2013 stating that claim has been repudiated as there is no insurable interest, this fact is evidenced by Ex. Op No:2.  Looking  to the facts and documents available in this case we have come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Op.  The theft of vehicle was on 08/12/2012 between 7-00 PM to 7-00 AM i.e. 09/12/2012.  As per the policy produced by the Op, it clearly shows that policy commences for the period of 09/12/2012 at 00:1 hours to 08/12/2013 midnight it means that theft of vehicle was before the commencement of policy.  Moreover insurance is not  in force at the time of theft of vehicle.  Hence we answer to the Point no:1 in negative.

 

13)    Point No:2:- In view of the above discussions at point No:1 once the deficiency of service is not proved. The next point is how much compensation complainant is entitled for? does not arise.  Hence. We answer to the Point No:2 in negative.

 

 

14)    Point No.3:-   In the result the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

1. The complaint of the complainant is dismissed. No order

as to costs.  

2. Free copy of this order shall be sent to the parties

immediately.

 

   (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited,

corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 17^th day of December 2016).

 

 

 

Sri. S. H. Hosalli  President.

Smt. G. S. Kalyani     Lady Member.