BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.443 of 2014

Date of Instt. 16.12.2014

Date of Decision :14.07.2015

Balvir Singh son of Sucha Singh R/o Parha Road, District Jalandhar at presently residing at Mohalla Ajit Nagar, Near Gurudwara Jetherian, Kapurthala.

..........Complainant Versus

1. The National Insurance Company Limited, DO-1, BMC Chowk, Near Raja Regency Hotel, District Jalandhar.

2. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Company Limited, Graha Road, Near Taj Hotel, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Pankaj Kumar Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.RS Arora Adv., counsel for opposite party No.1.

Sh.Sushil Mehta Adv., counsel for opposite party No.2.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is owner of Three Wheeler Mohindra ALFA bearing No.PB08-CH-6071 and the said vehicle was purchased from Raga Motors, Pvt Ltd, Paragpur, Jalandhar vide delivery challan dated 23.5.2013 and thereafter the complainant had got prepared the registration certificate of the said vehicle from DTO/RTO, Jalandhar. Said vehicle was insured vide cover note No.401204353172 dated 23.5.2013. Thereafter the above said vehicle has been stolen from Court Chowk, Jalandhar on 19.11.2013 and in this respect the complainant lodged an FIR No.266 dated 6.12.2013, PS Navi Baradari, Jalandhar. After this the complainant approached to opposite party No.1 for taking his claim and opposite party No.1 asked the complainant that they would give the insurance amount to opposite party No.2 and the complainant again approached to opposite party No.1, told his story to them but said finance company did not listen the request of the complainant. Resultantly the complainant again visited the office of opposite party No.1 and submitted all the relevant documents regarding above said vehicle and also submitted an accident claim form with opposite party No.1. Thereafter nothing was done by the opposite parties despite the repeated request to the complainant. Ultimately opposite parties refused to entertain the claim of the complainant alleging that they would give the claim amount to finance company. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party insurance company to pay him insurance amount of Rs.1,83,000/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 pleaded that of the alleged loss of 19.11.2013, the complainant fails to produce any record which could show that the loss was intimated to the company. Failure to intimate the loss, dis-entitles the insured from any relief. When there was no evidence of any intimation to the company, there was no question of coming of the claim form from the side of the complainant. The claim form as attached with the complaint is fake. The blank claim forms are available from the office and also through the development officer and through any agent or to any one on asking for it from the office. After obtaining blank one, the attached form has been fabricated by the complainant. The postal receipt is of date 18.3.2014 of some contents weighing 50 grms. The receipt further shows the letter addressed to National Insurance Company, Jalandhar City PIN 144002. The opposite party No.1 has no office under PIN 144002. The forgery and fabrication of false evidence are apparent on face of it. The addressed documents which soever those were, were never meant to reach the opposite party No.1 nor reached. Even in the lodging of the FIR there is a delay of 17 days which is not explained. The version given by the complainant naturally loses its credibility and is well planned and malafide thought of. Due reply to the legal notice of the complainant was given. The reply is not controverted. Since no investigation or survey could be conducted of an event more than 11 months old and no cause of theft could be ascertained by the insurance company, no final survey could be visualized to be done, and no documentation could be made of the past in the present, therefore, there is no question of now registering the claim. In other words, had the insured intimated at the proper and relevant time, the insurer would have come into action and got the facts and circumstances in which the alleged theft had taken place investigated and loss assessed in the year 2013. The claim form placed on record is a forged document. There is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party No.1. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In its separate written reply, opposite party No.2, inter-alia, pleaded that the complainant approached and requested the opposite party No.2 for the grant of financial assistance for the purchase of Mahindra Alfa Passenger and the complainant submitted the requisite documents for availing the loan and executed loan agreement on 3.6.2013. The complainant company considered the proposal of the complainant and sanctioned and disbursed a loan vide loan agreement no.2632945, of Rs.2,21,760/- inclusive of interest, repayable in 36 equated monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs.6160/- each commencing from 5.7.2013, subject to the execution of the requisite loan documents. The complainant as on 30.3.2013 is liable to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.1,42,036/-. The present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has suppressed material facts from this Forum, and has relied on false documents and has relied on a false version. It denied other material averments of the complainant for want of knowledge.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of document Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OA and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/3 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question of the complainant was insured with opposite party No.1 company. Ex.C3 is cover note. The cover note/policy is dated 23.5.2013 and it was valid till 22.5.2014. According to the complainant, his vehicle i.e Three Wheeler was stolen on 19.11.2013 and in this regard he lodged FIR No.266 dated 6.12.2013 with PS Navi Baradari, Jalandhar. Further according to the complainant, he approached opposite party No.1 insurance company and submitted all the relevant documents alongwith accident claim form but nothing was done by the insurance company. Ex.C6 is motor accident claim form alleged to have been submitted by the complainant with opposite party No.1 insurance company. On the copy of claim form, postal receipt dated 18.3.2014 is affixed. So it means that according to complainant, the claim form was sent to opposite party No.1 insurance company on 18.3.2014. According to opposite party No.1 insurance company, the complainant never submitted any claim form and above said claim form is forged one. Counsel for the opposite party contended that when no claim was lodged with the insurance company, the question of deciding the same does not arise. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has sent claim form Ex.C6 through registered post. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for both the parties. As already observed above, on the claim form Ex.C6 copy of postal receipt dated 18.3.2014 has been affixed meaning thereby that according to the complainant, he sent the claim form through registered post on 18.3.2014. The above said vehicle was stolen on 19.11.2013. Even if for the arguments sake, it is admitted that the complainant has sent the claim form to the opposite party No.1 insurance company on 18.3.2014, there was delay of about four months in giving intimation to the insurance company regarding the theft. In the complaint, the complainant has not mentioned any date of giving intimation to the insurance company. No useful purpose shall be served by asking the opposite party No.1 insurance company to decide the claim of the complainant as giving intimation regarding theft of the vehicle after about four months constitute breach of condition of the policy. In case of intimation of theft after about four months, the insurance company is unable to conduct its investigation to verify genuineness of the occurrence. Further in case, the intimation regarding theft has been given to the insurance company immediately after the loss then insurance company might have coordinated with the police to recover the stolen vehicle. In Sarfarjudeen Vs New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors, I(2015) CPJ 748(NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-

"We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which would justify our interference with it. The petitioner has not placed any material before us to take a different view. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the revision petition, which is liable for dismissal. While on the subject we would like to mention that in addition to what is observed by the State Commission, we may note that there was delay of four days in lodging the FIR and admittedly, the intimation about the information of theft was sent to the insurance company after a month of the theft. The terms of the policy require immediate action in such cases and as per settled law, such delay in the case of theft would result in outright repudiation of the claim because delay in lodging the FIR or intimating the insurance company would be disastrous to the interests of the insurance company and the same constitutes violation of a fundamental condition of the insurance contract. On this count also we are convinced that the claim of the petitioner was liable for repudiation".

8. In Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Mahender Jat, I (2015) CPJ 74 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-

"We have considered the rival contentions. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs.Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra), dismissed the complaint holding that in terms of the policy issued by the insurance company, the insured was duty bound to inform about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the accident(incident). Delay in intimation deprives the insurance company of its legitimate right to get inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. It was further held that the insurance company could not be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the insured despite the fact that he has not complied with the terms of the policy. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court read as under:-

"Admittedly the respondent has not informed the appellant about the alleged theft of the insured vehicle till he sent letter dated 22.5.1995 to the Branch Manager. In the complaint filed by him, the respondent did not give any explanation for this unusual delay in informing the appellant about the incident which gave rise to cause for claiming compensation. Before the District Forum, the respondent did state that he had given copy of the first information report to Rajender Singh Pawar through whom he had insured the car and untraced report prepared by police on 19.9.1995 was given to the said Rajender Singh Pawar, but his explanation was worthless because in terms of the policy, the respondent was required to inform the appellant about the theft of the insured vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom any reason why the respondent, who is said to have lodged First Information Report on 20.1.1995 about the theft of car did not inform the insurance company about the incident. In terms of the policy issued by the appellant, the respondent was duty bound to inform the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavor to recover the same. Unfortunately, all the Consumer Fora omitted to consider this grave lapse on the part of the respondent and directed the appellant to settle his claim on non-standard basis. In our view, the appellant can not be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the respondent despite the fact that he had not complied with the terms of the policy".

9. The ratio of both these authorities is fully applicable on the facts of the present case.

10. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

14.07.2015 Member Member President