Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that he purchased a milk tanker bearing RC No.PB-02-CC-6713 from Gurdeep Singh, Opposite Party No.2 and in this regard, said Gurdeep Singh duly executed affidavit and other necessary documents/ forms required for transfer of the vehicle in the name of complainant and accordingly, said vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant on 19.12.2018. During that period, the vehicle in question was insured by Opposite Party No.1 vide policy No.361100311801000004832 valid for the period 30.11.2018 to 29.11.2019 which was issued in the name of Opposite Party No.2 and hence with the transfer of ownership of vehicle, the insurance policy regarding the said vehicle also stood transferred in the name of the complainant. Further alleges that the vehicle in question was snatched/ stolen by Opposite Party No.2 and accordingly FIR No. 0975 dated 31.12.2018 was lodged with P.S.Shrirampur Shehar, District Ahmednagar under section 394/365/34 IPC. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Party No.1, but the Opposite Party No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant was not the registered owner of the vehicle in question and that as insurance policy in question was not transferred in the name of complainant at the relevant time and for that reason, the complainant has no insurable interest in the policy in question. But the rejection of claim of the complainant by Opposite Party No.1 is false, frivolous and in order to wriggle out its liability to pay the claim in question. Hence, it is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, but Opposite Party No.1 have failed to redress the grievance of the Complainant and at last refused to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- The Opposite Party may be directed to pay the claim amount in question to the complainant or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission deem fit may please be granted to the Complainant, in the interest of justice and equity.
Hence, the Complainant has filed the present complaint for the redressal of her grievances.
2. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Further alleges that this District Consumer Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint since there is no deficiency in service or negligence as alleged on the part of answering Opposite Party. The complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Party regarding snatching of his Milk Tanker bearing registration no.PB-02-CC-6713 and immediately on receipt of the claim, it was duly registered and processed. Mr. Kalika R. Kolhe, Advocate was deputed for investigation and he investigated the matter, collected documents and submitted his investigation report dated 15/03/2019 alongwith documents. Mr. Manoj Goyal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed for verification of registration certificate of vehicle no.PB-02CC-6713 and he submitted his verification report of RC dated 12/08/2019 with the Opposite Party no.1. After receipt of the investigation report along with documents and after receipt of the verification report of RC, the claim file of the complainant was duly scrutinized in terms of insurance policy and after applying the mind by the official of the conditions of policy and claim was repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 15/05/2019 which is duly received by the complainant. The said letter is self-explanatory and gives the detailed reason of repudiation of the claim. Further, the complainant has no insurable interest in the said vehicle as per insurance policy and claim is not payable under the policy terms and conditions. As such the complainant is not entitled for any relief. Repudiation letter, investigation report, verification report of RC and other documents are attached herewith and same be read as a part of the written statement. That the complainant is not entitled for any claim and the answering Opposite Party no.1 has explained the detailed reasons of repudiation of the claim vide registered letter dated 03/12/2019. In fact the said vehicle no.PB-02-CC-6713 was got insured by Mr.Gurdeep Singh i.e Opposite Party no.2 and said policy was valid w.e.f 30/11/2018 to 29/11/2019. The answering Opposite Party no.1 has got verified RC of the said vehicle. As per the verification of transferred Registration Certificate of vehicle No.PB-02CC6713, the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of complainant Mr. Satnam Singh son of Daljit Singh R/o Agwar Himmatpura Patti Mehar, Ghal Kalan, District Moga on 19.12.2018, from the original registered owner/insured Gurdeep Singh. The complainant did not get the insurance transferred in his name within the stipulated period of 14 days under the clause GR-17. No intimation was given by the insured Gurdeep Singh to the answering Opposite Party no.1 regarding the sale of said vehicle and its insurance to complainant Satnam Singh. The registration certificate has not been transferred in the name of complainant within the stipulated period of 14 days and vehicle has been robbed prior to transfer of policy, so claim is not payable and present complaint is liable to be dismissed. That as per contents of the FIR the vehicle was not stolen but snatched away by the original owner/insured Gurdeep Singh from the driver Lakhvir Singh, working under complainant Satnam Singh. Thus no case of theft is made out and the said vehicle is recoverable by the police from the persons named in the FIR. It is pertinent to mention here that only theft is covered under the policy and present cause of loss is not covered under the said policy. Moreover, as per contents of FIR no.975 dated 31/12/2018, the previous owner Gurdeep Singh has committed robbery of said tanker and FIR is also registered under section 394, 365 and 34 IPC. The complainant has impleaded Gurdeep Singh as Opposite Party no.2 in the present complaint who is in possession of the said vehicle. So, the person in whose possession the said vehicle is very much available and the complainant can file recovery suit against the Opposite Party no.2 for recovery of the vehicle and the complainant may also got recovered the said vehicle through police. The vehicle in question is in possession of the person who was known to the complainant and was previous owner of the vehicle and was insured at the time of robbery, so claim is not payable as same does not fall in the scope of policy. As such present complaint is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. That at the time of alleged in the name of Satnam Singh but insurance policy was in the name of previous owner Gurdeep Singh and the previous owner has also no insurable interest in the vehicle no.PB-02-CC-6713. So, claim is not maintainable as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Moreover as per contents of FIR the vehicle is in possession of Opposite Party no.2 who was insured at the time of robbery and there is no theft of vehicle. Moreover, the insurance policy is contract between insured and insurer and both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance policy is a contract on the basis utmost good faith. The claim of the complainant is not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. As such the present complaint is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. Further, the present complaint is not maintainable since complicated question of law and facts are involved which required elaborated evidence both oral and documentary and as such it is only civil court of competent jurisdiction which can try and decide the present complaint. The complaint cannot be decided by this District Consumer Commission in a summary manner and that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint since the complainant is not coming to the Commission with clean hands and had concealed the material facts from this Commission and as such he is not entitled to the any discretionary relief from this Commission. As such present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. On the other hand, none has come present on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, hence Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.1 also tendered into evidence the copies of documents Ex.Ops1/2 to Ex.OP1/25, affidavit of Smt.Sunita Mahajan Ex.Op1/26, affidavit of Manoj Goyal, Surveyor Ex.Op1/27, affidavit of Sh.Kalika R.Kohle Ex.OP1/28 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.1.
6. We have heard the complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. During the course of arguments, the complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as written reply respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the complainant is that after the sale of the vehicle in question, it was snatched/ stolen by Opposite Party No.2 and accordingly FIR No. 0975 dated 31.12.2018 was lodged with P.S.Shrirampur Shehar, District Ahmednagar under section 394/365/34 IPC. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Party No.1, but the Opposite Party No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant was not the registered owner of the vehicle in question and that as insurance policy in question was not transferred in the name of complainant at the relevant time and for that reason, the complainant has no insurable interest in the policy in question. But the rejection of claim of the complainant by Opposite Party No.1 is false, frivolous and in order to wriggle out its liability to pay the claim in question. On the other hand, the main contention of the Opposite Party No.1 is that at the time of alleged in the name of Satnam Singh but insurance policy was in the name of previous owner Mr.Gurdeep Singh and the previous owner has also no insurable interest in the vehicle no.PB-02-CC-6713. So, claim is not maintainable as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Moreover as per contents of FIR the vehicle is in possession of Opposite Party no.2 who was insured at the time of robbery and there is no theft of vehicle. Moreover, the insurance policy is contract between insured and insurer and both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Furthermore, the Opposite Party No.1 has got verified RC of the said vehicle. As per the verification of transferred Registration Certificate of vehicle No.PB-02CC6713, the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of complainant Mr. Satnam Singh son of Sh. Daljit Singh R/o Agwar Himmatpura Patti Mehar, Ghal Kalan, District Moga on 19.12.2018, from the original registered owner/insured Gurdeep Singh. The complainant did not get the insurance transferred in his name within the stipulated period of 14 days under the clause GR-17. No intimation was given by the insured Gurdeep Singh to the answering Opposite Party no.1 regarding the sale of said vehicle and its insurance to complainant Satnam Singh. The registration certificate has not been transferred in the name of complainant within the stipulated period of 14 days and vehicle has been robbed prior to transfer of policy, so claim is not payable and present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Not only this, the present complaint is not maintainable since complicated question of law and facts are involved which required elaborated evidence both oral and documentary and as such it is only civil court of competent jurisdiction which can try and decide the present complaint. The complaint cannot be decided by this District Consumer Commission in a summary manner.
8. In view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and matter regarding robbery of the vehicle in question by Opposite Party No.2 (previous owner of the vehicle) as alleged by the complainant, we are of the view that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. Not only this, the nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgements. Further in case Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction.”
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is not maintainable in this District Consumer Commission for its proper adjudication and the same stands dismissed. However, the complainant can get redressal of his grievance from the Civil Court/ or any other competent authority, in accordance with law, for which the time spent before this District Commission shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Lakshmi Engineering Works vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC 583'. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:14.07.2022.
