ORDER
[Per Ms. Savita G. Kurtarkar, Member]
By this order we shall dispose the complaint filed by the Complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The Complainant is a registered owner ofthe vehicle bearing registration no.GA-08-E-2870 of the Hyundai Santro of Hyundai make.The said vehicle is insured with the Opposite Party under policy bearing no.77121971.
It is the case of the complainant that the car was parked in the city of Margao.It was stolen and the Complainant filedacomplaintand FIR.in the Margao Police Station.
The Complainant also filed claim with Opposite Party. After filing of claim by, the Complainant, the Opposite Party engaged some investigator for investigation in the matter.The Complainant addressed letter dated 22-04-2013 to the Opposite Party to settle their claim.Thereafter, by letter dated 13-05-2013 the Complainant asked the Opposite Party about the settling of his claim.The Complainant stated that he received a letter from the Opposite Party that the Complainant’s claim cannot be granted.
Vide notice dated 25-06-2013 addressed to the Opposite Party the Complainant asked the Opposite Party to settle the claim within 15 days from the receipt of the letter.Same was received by the Opposite Party.However, there was no reply to the said legal notice.Hence the complaint with the following prayers.
a) The Opposite Party be directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,40,500/- to the complainant with interest of 15 % p.a.
b) Cost of the complaint be allowed.
5. At the time of filing of the complaint, the complainant relied on following xerox copies of the documents.
a) Complaint/FIR filed before the Police dated 17-03-2012.
b) Letter dated 22-04-2013.
c) Letter dated 13-05-2013.
d) Letter dated 25-06-2013addressed by the Opposite Party to the Complainant.
e) Letter dated 08-08-2012 addressed by the Opposite Party to the Complainant.
f) Legal notice dated 25-06-2013. alongwith A.D. card
6. The Opposite Party was served and filed his written version. The Opposite Party denied that the complaint of theft of insured vehicle was reported to Police Authorities soon after occurrence of the theft. The Opposite Party also denied allegations of harassment to the Complainant as false.
7. The Opposite Party stated that the complainant has failed to satisfy the conditions of Insurance Policy therefore, their claim could not be settled. Further, the Opposite Party contended that the Opposite Party repudiated the claim on account of non compliance of condition of the policy.
8. It is the case of the Opposite Party that original keys have not been submitted to support the claim of the Complainant. It is also the case of the Opposite Party that there is a second similar incidence of theft of vehicle, pertaining to this complaint, which raises doubt about the genuiness of the claim by this complainant.
9. It is also the case of the Complainant that insured vehicle was stolen on 17-03-2012 and FIR was registered only on 08-04-2012.
10. The Opposite Party prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplanary cost. The Complainant filed his affidavit in evidence. The Complainant filed their written submissions. Matter posted for oral argument arguments. On the date on which the matter was posted for oral arguments none was present for the Opposite Party. Previous to that hearing i.e. on 09-01-2015 also none was present for the Opposite Party. Heard oral arguments of the Complainant.
11. After perusing the complaint and the documents of the Complainant, no where in the complaint the Complainant has described about the incident of theft that took place. We find that the Complainant nowhere in the complaint has stated the date on which the theft had taken place neither the Complainant has given the time and place of the incident of the theft which took place, and how it took place.
12. We have also observed the Complainant did not care to give any details about the driver who was driving or in whose possession the vehicle was. Complainant at para 3 of the complaint has specifically stated that the Complainant had lodged a complaint and FIR was registered by the Margao Police.
13. After perusing the complaint we find that the complaint is dated 17-03-2012 and the FIR was lodged on 08-04-2012. The Complainant has failed to satisfy why there was delay in filing FIR.
14. While perusing the written version of the Opposite Party, we have noticed that at the time of filing the claim, the Complainant has not handed over the original keys of the vehicle to the Opposite Party. During the course of arguments when it was asked to the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant why the original keys were not handed over to the Opposite Party, the answer was the keys were left in the ignition and driver had gone somewhere.
15. We have also gone through the affidavit of the Complainant wherein we find no satisfactory statement as to allow the present complaint.
16. We therefore, are of the opinion that the Complainant has filed frivolous and vexatious complaint before this Forum with the intention to extract money from the Opposite Party.
17. While disposing the present complaint, we shall rely on the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.4527 of 2014 dated 14-01-2015 in Batta Valji Laxman v/s ICICI Lombard Gen Insurance Co. Ltd., and para 8 of said decision is reproduced hereinunder:
“8 Another reason why this revision petition cannot be allowed is that admittedly the driver of the vehicle left the keys of the vehicle in the ignition and went out to a hotel to take tea. According to the complainant/petitioner the driver returned after about 15 minutes. Thus the vehicle was left unattended for about 15 minutes, with keys in the ignition. The driver was an agent of the insured thereby failed to take adequate safeguards for the safety of the vehicle. The theft took place solely due to the negligence on his part. This was yet another ground on which the insurance company was entitled to repudiate the claim and in fact this is the only ground taken in the reply for repudiating the claim.”
17. We, as already said the complaint appears to our minds frivolous and vexatious, assuming theft took place, it is solely due to negligence of the driver on his part. The vehicle was left unattended with a key in the ignition. The Complainant has failed to prove that the keys are handed over to Opposite Party. In order to bring awareness in the minds of persons who are driving and leaving the vehicle with keys in ignition we pass the following order.
18. The facts of the present complaint and that of Revision Petition are similar and therefore relying on the above, we find no merit in the present complaint and we pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. We find that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and also Complainant is trying to enrich with unlawful gains therefore, the Complainant is ordered to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- in the Consumer Welfare Fund within 30 days from the receipt of this order and no costs are paid to the Opposite Party as the Opposite Party has avoided to remain present after filing his written version.
[Shri Jayant S. Prabhu]
President
[Ms. Savita G. Kurtarkar]
Member
[Ms. Cynthia Colaco]
Member
