Punjab

Sangrur

CC/489/2018

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh

12 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 489

 Instituted on:   26.11.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     12.11.2021

 

Kuldeep Singh sonof Sh. Gurdev Singh, resident of Village Alloarkh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office: Near Ranbir College, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

             ….Opposite party 

 

For the complainant    : Shri Sukhwinder Singh Adv.              

For OP                      : Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

S.P. Sood, President

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

ORDER BY:     

S.P. Sood, President.

1.             Shri Kuldeep Singh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘complainant’) has filed this complaint alleging inter-alia that he is the registered owner of truck/tipper bearing registration number PB-11-BK-0753. He got the same insured with OP vide policy number 36060231160100001851 valid from 17.6.2016 to 16.6.2017 after OP had declared the IDV (insured declared value) as Rs.12.50 Lacs. Complainant further alleged that he got the said truck/tipper financed from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Limited and he has been using the same for earning his livelihood. This is how complainant happens to be consumer of the OP. Further complainant has alleged that on 5.5.2017 at about 11.00 PM  as complainant alongwith his driver reached near Samana Kanchiyan, Near Rubber Factory, Bhawanigarh,  when all of a sudden this tipper came to a halt some how or the other when they were unable to restart its engine despite repeated attempts then as a last resort  complainant parked the said vehicle at the same place and locked it properly. However, on the next day i.e. 6.5.2017 when the complainant along with mechanic reached the above said spot at about 7.00 AM  for getting it repaired then the complainant was shocked to see that his truck was not available at that place where he had parked it. Following this development complainant tried his best to locate his above said vehicle but all in vain.  Thereafter he immediately informed SHO PS Bhawanigarh in writing and also flashed intimation to the concerned officials of the Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Limited who in turn also assured complainant that they will also inform the officials of the OP in due course regarding this theft from whom the same was got insured.  It was also disclosed that the OP being insurer was arranged by Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Limited and perhaps that is why they had offered him to inform the insurance company at their own initiative.  After the needful was done in this regard  OP was instrumental in appointing surveyor who of course visited the complainant in his house itself and made him to write his signature on various documents and also obtained copies of some other related papers for processing to initiate the release of claim amount.  Even at that occasion the complainant also handed over original key of the truck/tipper to the surveyor after the same was demanded from him. Continuing further complainant also alleged that local police officials also advised complainant to keep on making efforts to trace his stolen vehicle but complainant was not successful. Finally when no such headway was made in this regard then local police also informed complainant that a full fledge FIR number 88 of 2.6.2017 under section 379 of the IPC was registered at PS Bhawanigarh and this development was also brought to the notice of the officials of the OP by complainant himself. However, since police machinery was not able to trace the stolen vehicle, as such ultimately they had submitted untraced report before the concerned court and the same was duly accepted while holding National Lok Adalat at Sangrur on 10.3.2018. Finally complainant also approached OP with a specific request for release of the claim amount but to his disappointment OP repudiated his claim. Faced with this situation complainant again put forth repeated requests before the officials of the OP for reconsidering his claim but again they did not heed to the same so complainant was left with no other alternative except to file this complaint on account of OP having indulged into unfair trade practice and sought for releasing the claim amount of Rs.12,50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft of the said vehicle till its realization alongwith a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation  for mental tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             On the other hand, OP has contested this complaint on the grounds of maintainability for the reason that the truck in question was being used for commercial purpose. Further, this complaint was also assailed on account of complainant having breached terms and conditions of the policy regarding his having intimated the theft and loss of vehicle after 26 days from the date of its loss.  Besides these, legal objections while answering various averments of complaint in parawise manner, that the complainant being the owner of the truck/tipper in question had got the same insurde from its office and its IDV was declared by them to be Rs.12,50,000/-. Likewise, the factum of having deputed and appointing surveyor for ascertaining of genuineness of the claim was also admitted, who in turn had submitted his report dated 15.11.2017.  Further OPs have also allegd that though as alleged by the complainant theft of the truck/tipper took place on 5.5.2017 but the local police authorities were intimated about the occurrence on 2.6.2017 i.e. after    26 days of the incident which of course was found to be fatal especially in view of the terms of the policy and as well as that of the settled law.  Elaborating this further, it was als alleged that in the event of loss of any insured vehicle, the OP/insurance company is supposed to be informed immediately without any delay but in the case in hand delay of as many as of 26 days was entailed which ultimately  came to be fatal for his case. This is simply for the reason that during the delay stolen vehicle could easily be removed for thousand and thousand Kilometers away and further more the same vehicle  could also be dismantled and converted into small pieces and be sold individually.  This is how, complainant can well said to be author of his own wrongs, therefore, he was not found to be entitled for any claim amount.  Further OP has also averred that the company processed the claim and sought the opinion of Shri Rajan K. Chand Advocate and after considering all the facts and circumstances on merits his claim was rightly repudiated.   Besides this, it was specifically averred that since there was no deficiency in services or no such unfair trade practice was found to be adopted by the OP, so the question for issuing any direction for reimbursement to the OP of IDV for the loss of truck alongwith compensation and litigation expenses could be paid to the complainant and in the end definite request for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.             After completion of pleadings, both the parties were directed to lead their respective evidence.  During this process, complainant tendered his sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 and relied upon policy schedule cum certificate of insurance Ex.C-2, written intimation given by complainant to SHO PS Bhawanigarh was relied upon as Ex.C-3.  FIR bearing number 88 of 2.6.2017 registered at PS Bhawanigarh was relied upon as ExC-4 and untraced report submitted by the police authorities Ex.C-5 and repudiation letter  issued by the OP as Ex.C-6.

4.             On the other hand, authorized counsel for the OP relied upon investigator Krish Associates’s report dated 15.11.2017 as Ex.OP-1, proposal form for commercial vehicle package policy pertaining to the stolen truck Ex.OP-2, policy schedule cum certificate of insurance as Ex.OP-3, letter addressed to the Manager of the OP by Sarpanch and another Rajwinder Singh as Ex.OP-4, details of various documents to be  supplied by complainant to the investigator as Ex.OP-5 and another intimation by the said investigator to various persons at the ends of the complainant during conduct of the investigation as Ex.OP-6, legal opinion rendered by Shri Rajan K Chand Advocate Ex.OP/7, repudiation letter Ex.OP-8 and sworn affidavit of Shri V.K. Chaudhary, Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. tendered as Ex.OP-9.

5.             It is also pertinent to mention here that besides the above said documents, OP also relied upon observation of the Hon’ble National Commission in one of its celebrated judgment titled Rang Lal deceased through his legal heirs versus The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others which also found mentioned in the body of legal opinion Ex.OP-7 and also found reiterated in the repudiation letter ex.OP-8 and besides this, learned counsel for the OP also relied upon what was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3957 of 2017 decided on 16.4.2018 titled Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Ram Awadh Singh.

6.             We have heard contentions put fourth by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as that of the OP and have gone through various documents with their valuable assistance.

7.             At the very outset, it is significant to note that the parties in this case are not at variance so far as Kuldeep Singh complainant being the owner of the truck is concerned.  Likewise, there is no dispute that the complainant got his truck/tipper insured with the OP vide policy number 36060231160100001851 valid from 17.6.2016 to 16.6.2017 and even it is also not disputed that the various officials of the OP declared the IDV of the stolen truck as Rs.12,50,000/-.  However, there does not seem to be much dispute between both the parties so far as the contention put forth by the complainant regarding having lost the above said truck  during the intervening night of  5/6.5.2017 is concerned.  In this context, it has also not been denied by the OP that after receiving intimation regarding theft of the vehicle, OPs immediately swung into action and appointed Krish Associates to look into the genuineness of the theft of the vehicle. In this regard, if we refer to the investigation report exhibited by the OP as Ex.OP-1, we find that it was opined by the concerned expert that on the basis of claim documents/claim form/witnesses/written and oral documents/ circumstantial evidence gathered during the course of investigation the truck/tipper in question was said to be genuinely reported as stolen during the intervening night of 5/6.5.2017 from Samana kanchian, Near Rubber Factory, Bhawanigarh.  Even it was also opined that FIR number 88 dated 2.6.2017 was found to be genuinely registered at PS Bhawanigarh. Going a step ahead, it was also observed that as per the non traceable report the said vehicle could not  be traced and based on all these observations the insured had genuinely lodged his claim.  It was on the basis of this expert opinion, the ball was put in the court of company itself for processing the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy under which the said vehicle was covered.  On the basis of this report, officials of the OP referred to the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.OP-3 and finally finding itself to be duly equipped with the legal opinion from Shri Rajan K Chand, Advocate, the claim was repudiated for the reason that complainant had entailed a delay of 26 days to report the theft of his vehicle to the local police and also to various officials of the OP and finding this delay of 26 days to be fatal this claim was repudiated.  The above said act on the part of the OP found due support and stand fortified by what was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission while deciding revision petition filed by Shri Rang Lal succeeded by his legal heirs.  Going into a little bit of details of the above said complaint, we found that vide this revision petition challenge was lodged to the order of Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Commission Jaipur against its order dated 24.1.2011 vide which the said Hon’ble State Commission had set aside the order dated 22.3.2007 of the District Consumer Forum/Commission Tonk.  In fact the above said District Forum had held  the then OP/Insurance company deficient in service in repudiating the insurance claim of the then complainant Rang Lal (deceased) owner of a tractor which he had insured with the OP during the relevant period (11.2.204 to 10.2.2005) on account of its being stolen on 8.6.2004. After recording the above said finding District Forum directed the insurance company to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,65,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment and costs of Rs.5000/-. However, aggrieved with the said direction/order , the then OP preferred First Appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission Rajasthan, which came to the conclusion that the said appellant/insurance company was justified in repudiating the insurance claim and as a consequence thereof the order passed by the District Forum was set aside.  However, aggrieved by the above said dismissal, the legal representative of the deceased Rang Lal approached the Hon’ble National Commission with this revision. Besides above said background, if we look into the facts seized by the Hon’ble National Commission, we find that the said tractor in question of the deceased Shri Rang Lal   was allegedly stolen during the validity of the insurance company on 8.6.2004. However, the case was registered by the police on 21.6.2004 and the above said complainant/insured had informed the insurance company regarding the said theft on 25.8.2004 only but as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the theft had to be intimated to the insurance company immediately as such finding the delay of over two months on the part of the complainant for informing the insurance company being unconscionable delay, the revision petition filed by the complainant through his legal heir was dismissed and the order passed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan State Commission was upheld.

8.             Similarly, what was observed again by the Hon’ble National Commission while deciding revision petition number 3957 of 2017 titled Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Ram Awadh Singh 2018(2) CPR 587, complaint was found to has been allowed by the District Commission and First Appeal preferred against the said order did not find favour with the same and finally when the above said revision petition was filed only then both the orders passed by the District Commission and Hon’ble State Commission were dismissed and the said revision petition was allowed resulting into dismissal of the complaint itself.  If we look into the facts of the above stated revision seized with the Hon’ble National Commission again it was only on the basis of delay of 15 days entailed by the complainant in lodging the FIR  which was found to be fatal for the complaint.

9.             Now coming to the case in hand, there is absolutely no material on record brought by the complainant which could substantiate his contention that immediately he informed the theft of the truck to the police and in order to substantiate his contention, an effort was made by the complainant that vide his written intimation brought before the Commission as Ex.C-3.  Even if written intimation bears the seal of police station of Bhawanigarh but the above said document Ex.C-3 can well said to be self serving in nature which could easily be prepared as besides the seal of the police station there is no such receipt indicated thereon.  Had the above said written intimation Ex.C-3 would have been actually submitted to the police then this fact should have very well been disclosed by the complainant when he got FIR registered regarding theft of vehicle on 2.6.2017.  A careful reading of  the same does not say anything in this regard.  When statement of the complainant was being recorded by the police what prevented him for disclosing the facts of his having reported the matter to the police on 6.5.2017 itself that is not understandable.  In the same context, it was no other but  the complainant himself who had alleged that since he had got his vehicle financed from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Ltd. but what satisfied him with the fact that officials of this financial institution themselves in turn would inform the insurance company about the theft of vehicle immediately meaning thereby what made complainant to remain satisfied simply by delegating it to them i.e. Mahindra and Mahindra to inform the insurance people about this theft. It is also a fact which can never be denied that whenever the vehicle gets stolen, the owner of the said vehicle need to inform the police officials as well as the insurance people immediately which can trigger and activate various authorities put in place for making efforts to find the stolen vehicle and if there is a delay of a few days, the vehicle can travel thousands and thousands of miles and even unscrupulous persons can get the same dismantled and converted into the spare parts which can also be sold individually and thus the vehicle looses its identity.  It is precisely for the above said hard facts that mere delay of few days was found to be bad for the complainant to ask for claim successfully.  Since in this case, there has been a delay of 26 days, therefore, when OPs repudiated the claim for this reason, there was no reason to suspect them to have adopted unfair trade practice  while denying this claim, as such, we find that present complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

10.            A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                November 12, 2021.

 

              (Sarita Garg)  (Vinod Kumar Gulati)     (S.P. Sood)

                   Member              Member           President