Haryana

Karnal

CC/600/2021

Narender Mann - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Balwan Singh Dhaunchak

21 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No. 600 of 2021

                                                      Date of instt.26.10.2021

                                                      Date of Decision:21.11.2023

 

Narender Mann Contractor son of Shri Jaidev, resident of House no.405, Sector 8, Part-2, Urban Estate, Karnal. Age 42 years.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Sangrur through Divisional Office, Gagan Building opposite Old Bus Stand, G.T.road, Karnal.

 

…..Opposite Party.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Suman Singh……Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Balwan Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri G.S. Juneja, counsel for the opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the owner of new Tata LPK 2518 CRE BS-IV HD bearing chasis no.MATA448856KAG13186, Engine no.91F84891201, Goods carrying open loading vehicle (Tipper) which has been purchased from M/s Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. G.T. Road, Mohra, District Ambala, vide invoice no.IMOMAM1920001427 dated 14.08.2019 with invoice value of Rs.33,33,000/- including GST. The said vehicle was financed by Tata Motors Finance Ltd. At the time of taking the delivery, the complainant insured the said vehicle from the OP, vide policy no.36130031190300001245, valid from 14.08.2019 to 13.08.2020 with the IDV of Rs.31,66,350/-. On 21/22.08.2019 night when the driver of the vehicle of complainant namely Deepak had parked the vehicle on Shiv Ganga Petrol Pump, Gohana, District Sonepat and in the morning of 22.08.2019 Shri Ranjeet Singh, Manager of Petrol Pump informed to the complainant that the said Hiva Dumper (Tipper) not available at the parking place and had been stolen by any unknown person. Accordingly, the complainant informed to the police on 100 number and immediately visit the site of mishap and tried to trace the vehicle here and there but all in vain. The matter was reported to the police in writing on the same day but the police searching the stolen vehicle at their level and finally lodged the FIR no.260 dated 01.09.2019 in Police Station, Sadar, Gohana. The intimation was also given to the OP on the same day. On receipt of intimation, OP appointed M/s Royal Associates an Investigating and Detective Agency to know the facts about the stolen vehicle. The complainant completed all the claim documents with the investigator. Investigator inspected both keys of the vehicle, visited the site of ishap, investigate and checked the record of police. CCTV footage of petrol pump, toll tax receipts, statement of driver/cleaner was also given to the investigator and the investigator was very much satisfied with the theft and accordingly he submitted the investigation report no.RA/NIA/LUG/955/19 dated 06.11.2019. The vehicle was purchased on 14.08.2019 with temporary registration no.HR/37/TMP/2019/3018 and as per the Motor Vehicle Act, the vehicle will have to be registered within 30 days from its purchase but it was very unfortunate that the vehicle stolen on dated 21/22.08.2019 night and hence this short time the complainant cannot apply for the permanent RC and other documents. It is further averred that complainant informed to the police about the theft immediately on phone and make a call on 100 number. The complainant received the information under RTI Act, 2005 from police Department and as per the reply vide letter memo no.22 dated 08.01.2021, the record of the VT can not be provided because the record of the VT has been destroyed. Relating this the Police Station, Sadar Gohana, confirmed vide letter dated 05.01.2021 that the complainant Shri Narender Mann informed the police on dated 22.08.2019 and accordingly the VEE TEE has been done by the police department. The complainant completed all the required claim documents and provided all the clarifications to the OP as per their letters dated 23.01.2020 and 12.02.2020. Because this is a case of theft and vehicle was stolen after eight days from its purchase and hence RC, route permit and fitness could not be applied because the Temp. number is valid for one month from its purchase. Till now OP not demanded the untrace report from the complainant and hence the complainant was not aware about the untrace report and hence not applied to obtain the untrace report from the police. Finally, the OP closed the claim as ‘No Claim’ with bad intention and with prejudice mind, vide letter dated 19.02.2020. Complainant submitted all the claim documents with OP but till yet OP not settled the claim and with bad intention close the claim file as No Claim. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP so many times and requested to settle the claim but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.31,64,850/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of theft till its realization, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.51000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that TATA LPK 2518 bearing engine no.91F84891201 and chasis no.MAT448856KAG13186 was insured with the OP, vide policy no.36130031190300001245 for the period 14.08.2019 to 13.08.2020 and the  Insured Declared Value of vehicle was Rs.31,66,350/-. However, complainant is not entitled to any claim due to violations of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is denied that all the documents as per terms and conditions of policy of insurance and requisite documents under Motor Vehicle Act for plying the vehicle were submitted to the investigator or the OP, despite registered letter dated 20.12.2019, 23.01.2020 and 12.02.2020. So, the claim file of complainant was closed, vide letter dated 19.02.2020 by the OP  as ‘No Claim’. It is further pleaded that the validity of temporary registration number for 30 days does not exempt insured to ply vehicle without permit, route permit and fitness during this period. Submission of untraceable report is also mandatory to obtain vehicle theft claim. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of tax invoice dated 14.08.2019 Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of FIR no.0260 dated 01.09.2019 Ex.C3, copy of investigation report Ex.C4, copy of RTI information Ex.C5, copy of No Claim letter dated 19.02.2020 Ex.C6, copy of pan card and aadhar card of complainant Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 16.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of K.K. Sachdeva Senior Divisional Manager Ex.O1, affidavit of Royal Associates Investigating and Detective Agency Ex.O2, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP1, copy of claim intimation letter Ex.OP2, copy of investigation report Ex.OP3, copy of letters dated 20.12.2019, 23.01.2020, 12.02.2020 Ex.OP4 to Ex.OP6, copy of claim closing letter dated 19.02.2020 Ex.O7, copy of invoice dated 18.08.2019 and 19.08.2019 Ex.OP8 and Ex.OP9, copy of opinion of Advocate Keemat Rai Aggarwal dated 20.12.2019 Ex.O10, copy of FIR Ex.OP11, copy claim intimation letter Ex.OP12, copy of email Ex.OP13 and closed the evidence on 27.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainants, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 14.08.2019, complainant purchased the vehicle in question for the consideration of Rs.33,33,000/-. The said vehicle was financed by Tata Motors Finance Ltd. The complainant insured the said vehicle from the OP, for the IDV of Rs.31,66,350/-. On 21/22.08.2019, the vehicle of complainant had been stolen by any unknown person. The intimation was sent to the OP and police lodged the FIR. The complainant submitted all the claim documents with the investigator as well as to the OP. The vehicle was stolen after eight days from its purchase and hence RC, route permit and fitness could not be applied because the Temporary Number is valid for one month from its purchase. The OP close the claim of complainant, vide letter dated 19.02.2020 as ‘No Claim’. Complainant approached the OP so many times and requested to settle the claim but OP did not settle the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that present complaint is premature and the claim of the complainant has been closed by the OPs for non-submission of necessary documents and in this regard OPs have written so many letters to complainant but complainant failed to do so. He further argued that complainant has not submitted the untrace report till date, which is mandatory in theft cases and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the vehicle in question had stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy.

11.           The claim of the complainant has been closed as ‘No Claim’ by OP, vide letter Ex.C6/Ex.OP7 dated 19.02.2020, on the ground, which is reproduced as under:-

        Xxxxxxx

        3.     We are closing your claim file on account of the following reason:

        Closed-No Claim- not pursued by insured.

12.           Before going to the merits of the complaint, firstly we decide whether the present complaint is pre-mature or not?

13.           During the course of evidence, complainant has tendered, copy of tax invoice dated 14.08.2019 Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of FIR no.0260 dated 01.09.2019 Ex.C3, copy of investigation report Ex.C4, copy of RTI information Ex.C5, copy of No Claim letter dated 19.02.2020 Ex.C6, copy of pan card and aadhar card of complainant Ex.C7.

14.           Complainant has not tendered into evidence untrace report, which is mandatory in the theft cases. The complainant has specifically mentioned in para no.11 of the complaint that OP party has not demanded the untrace report from the complainant and hence the complainant was not aware about the untrace report and has not applied to obtain the untrace report. The vehicle in question was financed by TATA Motors Finance Ltd. but complainant has not impleaded the said finance company as a party in the present complaint. It has been proved from the abovesaid version of the complainant, complainant neither obtained the untrace report from the concerned court nor tendered the same in his evidence before this Commission. Furthermore, the claim has not been repudiated by the OP rather same has been closed for not pursued by insured.

15.           Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is premature at this stage and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to pursue his claim alongwith untrace report before the OP and in that eventuality, OP is hereby directed to reopen the claim of the complainant and settled the same within two months. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 21.11.2023.   

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Suman Singh)

                  Member                Member