Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that the complainant had purchased insurance policy bearing No.36110031150100000533 from the Opposite Party for her vehicle  i.e. Chevorlet Beat Car bearing RC No.PB-29Q-1993 (wrongly mentioned as PB-29Q-19935), Chassis No.MA6BFBBNOCT056392, Engine No.10FCDZ130390170 valid for the period w.e.f. 22.04.2016 upto 21.04.2017 for IDV of Rs.3,21,429/- against the paid up premium of Rs.6438/-. The Complainant alleges that on 22.08.2018 the husband of the Complainant went to the house of his friend Baltej Singh son of Mohinder Singh,  Dharamshala Wali Gali, Barnala and parked the insured car in front of the house of said Baltej Singh in street during night time and at 04.45 AM they found that the said car was stolen by some unknown thieves and criminal case under section 379 IPC was registered at P.S.City, Barnala vide FIR No. 0273 dated 23.08.2016. However, said car was under hypothecation with HDFC Bank while the Complainant has already cleared the loan of the said bank and ‘No Objection Certificate’ has already been issued by said bank for expressing no objection for removal of the hypothecation of said bank on the car of the Complainant.  The Complainant further alleges that she  immediately informed the Opposite Party about the said incident and lodged a claim with the Opposite Party and supplied all the requisite documents as well as ‘Untraced Report’ prepared by the police under section 173 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party number of times for making the insured amount, but the Opposite Party after long delay, repudiated the claim of the Complainant vide letter dated 03.11.2017 on the ground that in the NCRB report, the said vehicle of the Complainant is not stated to be stolen by the police.  This ground made by the Opposite Party for rejecting the genuine claim of the Complainant is totally bald, vague and frivolous. When the police has registered FIR, then prepared ‘Untraced Report’ under section 173 Cr.P.C. and only due to some clerical mistake, the RC number of the said vehicle  has been mentioned wrongfully by the police on the site of NCRB, due to which the report of the NCRB states that the vehicle of the Complainant bearing PB-29Q-1993 is not stolen but in fact, the police inadvertently mentioned the RC number of the car as PB-19Q-1993 whereas the correct engine number and chassis number have been mentioned on the said site.  Thus, if one checks the status of the car by mentioning the RC number of the car as PB-19Q-1993 and the engine number and chassis number of the car of the Complainant, then the status reflects that the car has not yet been recovered. The Complainant explained all this whole fact in detail to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the same and repudiated the genuine claim of the Complainant. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To make the payment of Rs.3,21,429/- to the Complainant as IDV of the insured vehicle.

b)      An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by the Complainant.

c)       An amount of Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       Opposite Party-Insurance Company  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the  complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Moreover, the  lengthy examination-in-chief and cross examination of the parties/ witnesses are required  in the complaint  which is not possible in the summary procedure  under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. Actual facts are that the complainant has not approached this District Consumer Commission with clean hands, rather he has wilfully concealed the material and patent facts from this District Consumer Commission while filing the present complaint which ipso-facto disentitles the complainant to seek any relief against the Opposite Parties. The actual facts are that the claim intimation was received by the Opposite Party on 30.08.2016 and the claim was entrusted to Mr.Ujjagar Singh Kohli, Investigator/ Surveyor who submitted his report dated 25.10.2016 to the following effect:-

i) Before finalising the claim all the legal formalities such as collection of Adam Pata Report and Untraceable Certificate from the Court, etc. may be got completed.

ii) The insured was advised to arrange duplicate R.C. but she has not submitted the same up till now.

A letter was handed over to the Complainant by the Opposite Party vide which NCRB report for further processing of the claim was required. Again a letter dated 03.10.2017 was sent to the Complainant vide which  she was requested to submit the proper NCRB report to enable the Opposite Party to proceed in the matter within 10 days, but the Complainant has not provided the same so far. The NCRB report submitted by the Complainant was incomplete as it mentioned that the above mentioned vehicle has not been reported by stolen by police. So, without doing the needful and getting the report of stolen vehicle, the Complainant has filed the instant false and frivolous complaint which is liable to be dismissed.  On merits, it is admitted by the Opposite Party that said vehicle No.PB-29Q-1993 is insured with the Opposite Party  vide policy No. 3611031160100000495 valid from 22.04.2016 to 21.04.2017, however the Complainant has wrongly given the policy number of previous insurance policy and also mentioned the wrong RC number of the vehicle. Moreover, the Complainant has not got the report of  stolen vehicle on NCRB, so the matter could not be settled due to the Non Supply of NCRB report of theft of the said insured vehicle and hence, the claim of the Complainant has rightly been repudiated by the Opposite Party.              

3.       In order to  prove  her  case, the complainant has placed on record  her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents  i.e. copy of policy Ex.C2,  copy of FIR Ex.C3,  copy of Adam Pata report Ex.C4, copy of letter Ex.C5,  copy of vehicle enquiry report Ex.C6, Ex.C7, copy of RC of the insured vehicle Ex.C8, copy of ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued by HDFC Bank, copy of aadhaar card Ex.C10  and closed the evidence of the Complainant.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party also  tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jaswant Singh Dhaap Ex.OP-7  alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and closed evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written arguments filed by the Complainant and also  gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the Complainant has  mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that first of all, the written version  filed on behalf of the Opposite Party has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. Opposite Party is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given  to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party. Further contended that the complainant had purchased insurance policy bearing No.36110031150100000533 from the Opposite Party for her vehicle  i.e. Chevorlet Beat Car bearing RC No.PB-29Q-1993 (wrongly mentioned as PB-29Q-19935), Chassis No.MA6BFBBNOCT056392, Engine No.10FCDZ130390170 valid for the period w.e.f. 22.04.2016 upto 21.04.2017 for IDV of Rs.3,21,429/- against the paid up premium of Rs.6438/-. Ld.counsel for the Complainant further contended that on 22.08.2018 the husband of the Complainant went to the house of his friend Baltej Singh son of Mohinder Singh,  Dharamshala Wali Gali, Barnala and parked the insured car in front of the house of said Baltej Singh in street during night time and at 04.45 AM they found that the said car was stolen by some unknown thieves and criminal case under section 379 IPC was registered at P.S.City, Barnala vide FIR No. 0273 dated 23.08.2016. However, said car was under hypothecation with HDFC Bank while the Complainant has already cleared the loan of the said bank and ‘No Objection Certificate’ has already been issued by said bank for expressing no objection for removal of the hypothecation of said bank on the car of the Complainant.  Further contended that the Complainant  immediately informed the Opposite Party about the said incident and lodged a claim with the Opposite Party and supplied all the requisite documents as well as ‘Untraced Report’ prepared by the police under section 173 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party number of times for making the insured amount, but the Opposite Party after long delay, repudiated the claim of the Complainant vide letter dated 03.11.2017 on the ground that in the NCRB report, the said vehicle of the Complainant is not stated to be stolen by the police.  This ground made by the Opposite Party for rejecting the genuine claim of the Complainant is totally bald, vague and frivolous. When the police has registered FIR, then prepared ‘Untraced Report’ under section 173 Cr.P.C. and only due to some clerical mistake, the RC number of the said vehicle  has been mentioned wrongfully by the police on the site of NCRB, due to which the report of the NCRB states that the vehicle of the Complainant bearing PB-29Q-1993 is not stolen but in fact, the police inadvertently mentioned the RC number of the car as PB-19Q-1993 whereas the correct engine number and chassis number have been mentioned on the said site.  Thus, if one checks the status of the car by mentioning the RC number of the car as PB-19Q-1993 and the engine number and chassis number of the car of the Complainant, then the status reflects that the car has not yet been recovered. The Complainant explained all this whole fact in detail to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the same and repudiated the genuine claim of the Complainant and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that first of all,  the 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 and this  District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. It is further contended that claim intimation was received by the Opposite Party on 30.08.2016 and the claim was entrusted to Mr.Ujjagar Singh Kohli, Investigator/ Surveyor who submitted his report dated 25.10.2016 to the following effect:- i) Before finalising the claim all the legal formalities such as collection of Adam Pata Report and Untraceable Certificate from the Court, etc. may be got completed. ii) The insured was advised to arrange duplicate R.C. but she has not submitted the same up till now. A letter was handed over to the Complainant by the Opposite Party vide which NCRB report for further processing of the claim was required. Again a letter dated 03.10.2017 was sent to the Complainant vide which  she was requested to submit the proper NCRB report to enable the Opposite Party to proceed in the matter within 10 days, but the Complainant has not provided the same so far. The NCRB report submitted by the Complainant was incomplete as it mentioned that the above mentioned vehicle has not been reported by stolen by police. So, without doing the needful and getting the report of stolen vehicle, the Complainant has filed the instant false and frivolous complaint which is liable to be dismissed.  Admittedly, the  vehicle No.PB-29Q-1993 is insured with the Opposite Party  vide policy No. 3611031160100000495 valid from 22.04.2016 to 21.04.2017, however the Complainant has wrongly given the policy number of previous insurance policy and also mentioned the wrong RC number of the vehicle. Moreover, the Complainant has not got the report of  stolen vehicle on NCRB, so the matter could not be settled due to the Non Supply of NCRB report of theft of the said insured vehicle and hence, the claim of the Complainant has rightly been repudiated by the Opposite Party.

8.       Perusal of the contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant   shows  that  the written version  filed on behalf of the Opposite Party  has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. The Opposite Party  is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given  to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party. In this regard,  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment (2011)II Supreme Court Cases 524 titled as “State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd.” and in para no.11 of the judgment,  has held that

“the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. On the plea that one authority letter dated 02.01.2003 was issued by Sh. R.K.Shukla in favour of Sh. A.K.Shukla. Further plaint failed to place on record its memorandum/articles to show that Sh. R.k.Shukla has been vested with the powers or had been given a general power of attorney on behalf of the Company to sign, verify and institute the suit on behalf of the Company.”

Similar proposition came before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Nibro Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.”, 2 (2005) 5SCC 30 that the

“bear authority is not recognized under law and ultimately, it was held that the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. Here also appellant has not placed on record any resolution passed by any Board of Director in favour of Mr. Soonwon Kwon and that he was further authorised to delegate his power in favour of any other person. Further there is no memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Mr. Soonwon Kwon is one of the Director of the Company. In the absence of that evidence on record we cannot say that the special power of attorney given by Director Soonwon Kwon is a competent power of attorney issued in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh. In the absence of any resolution of the Company or any memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Sh. Soonwon Kwon is Director and that he was further authorised to issue power of attorney in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh.”

Recently our own Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab Chandigarh in FAO No.1235 of 2015 decided on 25.01.2017 in case titled as L.G.Electronics India Private Limited Vs. Sita Ram Chaudhary also held that the plaint instituted by  an unauthorized person has no legal effect.

9.       Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties further contended the 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 and this  District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. So far as the objection that complicated question of the fact is involved as such the Insured be relegated to go before Civil Court, is concerned, The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted with object to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers and for that purpose, to make provision for the establishment of consumer council and other authorities for settlement of consumer disputes and other matter connected therewith. Section 13 (4) confers same powers upon the authorities under the Act, which are vested in Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit in respect of (i) The summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath, (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence, (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits, (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test the appropriate laboratory or from other relevant source, (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed. The authorities are conferred jurisdiction to decide the issue of “unfair trade practice” which has been defined under Section 2 (r) of the Act. This definition is similar to the definition of “fraud” as given under Section 17 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. From these provisions it is clear that this Commission can hold a full trail as held by civil court or adopt summary procedure for decision of any complaint. Under the Act, although the jurisdiction of the authorities is limited to consumer complaint, but while deciding such complaint no limit has been fixed for adjudicating of the dispute. Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635, (paragraph-7) held that the object and purpose of the Act is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumer with complaint against defective goods and deficient services and the benevolent piece of legislation, intended to protect a large body of consumer from exploitation. Consumer Forum is an alternate Forum, established under the Act, to discharge the function of Civil Court. Under the Act, the consumers are provided with an alternative efficacious and speedy remedy. As such the Consumer Forum is an alternative forum established under the Act to discharge the functions of Civil Court. Therefore, delay in disposal of the complaint would not be a ground for rejecting the complaint and directing the complainant to approach the Civil Court. The argument that the complicated question of fact cannot be decided by the Forum, has been specifically rejected (In paragraph-12). Similar view has been taken in Amar Jwala Paper Mills Vs. State Bank of India, (1998) 8 SCC 387, CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233. Recently, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in CC No. 101 of 2009 titled as mahalaxmi Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited decided on 07.09.2021 also held so.  Hence, this District Consumer Commission is  not convinced with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party.

10.     For the sake of arguments, for the time being, if the written reply filed by Opposite Party is presumed to be correct, the next  plea  raised by Opposite Party  is the only ground for the repudiation of the claim of the Complainant by the Opposite Party is that the Complainant has not supplied the NCRB report of theft. But we do not agreed with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Party as the Complainant can not be made to suffer at the inadvertence of some police official who erroneously uploaded  wrong RC number on the site of NCRB while the mistake is even of only one alphabet while the engine number and chassis number are absolutely correct. Moreover, in India, no two vehicles could run on same engine or chasis number.  Moreover, the investigator of the Opposite Party  in his report Ex.OP2 has categorically proved and established the fact of theft of vehicle of the Complainant (at last page para No.2 “From the statement of insured, local inquiry at Mandiaran Wala, inquiry at Barnala and discussion with the police the theft of insured vehicle  on 22/23.08.2016 night is fully established). Hence, only due to the difference of RC number  code i.e. PB-29Q (Moga code)  and PB-19Q (Barnala code), the Opposite Party has repudiated the claim of the Complainant. It is further worthwhile to mention over here that PB-29 is the Moga Code and PB-19 is the Barnala code. Since the FIR was lodged at Barnala,  hence, the police officials of Barnala could have  mentioned the code (PB-19)  of Barnala instead of  actual code of Moga (PB-29) which appears to be clerical mistake and due to the clerical mistake on the part of the police officials,  the Complainant should not be suffer. Whereas all other particulars such like Policy number, period of insurance, sum insured,  date of registration of vehicle, make model, engine number, chassis number, police report, FIR number etc. are correctly mentioned in NCRB  report Ex.C7, except RC number of the vehicle. Hence, we are of the view that the Opposite Party has wrongly and illegally repudiated the genuine claim of the Complainant, by searching a little clerical mistake which is occurred due to the lapse on the part of the police officials of Barnala.   It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case  M/s.Delkon (India) Pvt.Ltd Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited III(1993) CPJ 313 (NC) that the complainant can not be denied his claim on the ground that final report was not forthcoming. It was further held that when complainant had lodged FIR immediately but has not received the final report from the police, there is no contractual obligation under the policy of insurance for the insured to produce final investigation report from the police. The same view has been taken by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission in case New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Yadvalli Gangadevi I(2004) CPJ 263 as well as by Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in case Ridhi Gupta Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. III(2008) CPJ 459.  In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that Opposite Party was not justified in closing the case of the complainant as ‘no claim’ and the complainant was forced to file the present complaint. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party qua the complainant. 

11.     In such a situation the repudiation made by the Opposite Party regarding genuine claim of the complainant appears to have been made without application of mind. It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pesters to the customer at the time of selling insurance policies, and when it comes to payment of the insurance claim, they invent all sort of excuses to deny the claim. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that, Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation.  This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible.  It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-

“It seams that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.

12.     Now come to the quantum of compensation. Admittedly, as per the policy schedule cum certificate Ex.C2, the vehicle in question was insured with IDV of Rs.3,21,429/- and hence, the Opposite Party-Insurance Company is directed to pay the insured amount of the vehicle in question, to the complainant i.e. 3,21,429/- (Rupees three lakh twenty one thousands four hundred twenty nine only) within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of Registration certificate  of the vehicle in question, NOC from the financiers of the vehicle in question, if any, in favour of the Opposite Party-Insurance Company by the complainant, failing which the Opposite Party-Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest on the awarded amount  @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 03.10.2018 till its realization.   Opposite Party-Insurance Company is also directed to pay the lump sum compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousands only) on account of harassment, mental tension  and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

13.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the 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: 02.11.2021.

(Aparana Kundi)       (Mohinder Singh Brar)   (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

       Member                               Member                                 President