BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 51 of 2015

Date of Institution: 16.01.2015

Date of Decision: 18.02.2016 

Gagandeep Singh son of S.Sudarshan Singh, resident of Village: Jethuwal, District Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its Divisional Office No.2, M.M.Malviya Road, Amritsar through its Divisional Manager/ Principal Officer.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11/ 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Vikram Puri, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh. Sandeep Khanna, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Gagandeep Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is registered owner of Car Indica Turbo bearing Registration No.PB02-AZ-7600, Engine No. 12487, Chassis No. 16241, Model 2008 Colour Silver and got the same registered with Opposite Party vide insurance policy No. 235300/31/2012/6014 for insured value of Rs.2,35,000/- for a period of one year from 2.3.2012 to 1.3.2013 against the requisite premium. Complainant alleges that on 5.11.2012, at about 10.00 PM, he went to Mokha Hospital, Batala Road, Amritsar for buying certain medicines and parked the aforesaid vehicle there and when he came back, said vehicle was found missing from the place where it was parked and was stolen by some one. The complainant reported the matter to concerned Police Chowki Shivala Bhaiyan, Amritsar and the police connected the report of the theft of vehicle of complainant with FIR No. 446 dated 12.10.2012 under section 379 IPC. Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to Opposite Party regarding theft of his insured vehicle and also lodged his claim with Opposite Party for settlement of claim. The complainant also submitted all the relevant documents with Opposite Party as required by them including copy of insurance policy, registration certificate, copy of FIR, untraced certificate from the concerned police station under section 173 Cr.P.C. etc. The CRO Branch, Amritsar also issued a certificate dated 8.1.2014 that they have already sent the report regarding the vehicle in question to Assistant Director, NCRB, New Delhi. Not only this, the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar City sent information to the Assistant Director (P), Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi vide No. 4-5/CRO dated 4.1.2015 alongwith statement showing stolen vehicles including the stolen vehicle of the complainant from 1.12.2014 to 31.12.2014. Thereafter, the complainant has been visiting the Opposite Party time and again and requesting them to settle his claim. Now the complainant has received a letter dated 4.3.2014 from Opposite Party vide which the Opposite Party has rejected the genuine and legitimate claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has failed to supply the documents i.e. original/ duplicate RC of stolen vehicle, both keys of stolen vehicle, statement supporting his claim with self statement, copy of identity as voter card/ ration card/ Aadhar Card, untraced report, claim form duly filled in, etc.  In fact, the complainant has already supplied all the aforesaid documents to the Opposite Party.             Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the insurance claim of Rs.2,35,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of lodging the claim till payment.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the  untraceable report of the stolen vehicle is required to be accepted by the concerned Magistrate as provided under section 173 Cr.P.C. alongwith NCRB report, but the complainant has not submitted any document/ order to comply with the aforementioned requirements. The Opposite Party has requested the complainant vide its letters dated 10.6.2013, 30.8.2013 and 11.10.2013 to submit the copy of original RC of the stolen vehicle, keys of stolen vehicle, self statement of claimant supporting the claim, identity proof, untraced report and claim form duly signed in, etc. But the complainant has miserably failed to comply with the aforementioned requirements nor did he submit the said documents with the Opposite Party. Moreover, the complainant had sold the vehicle in question on 16.2.2012 whereas the vehicle in question was allegedly stolen on 5.11.2012 i.e. more than 9 months after the complainant had sold the said vehicle, but the complainant has intentionally withheld this material information with a wrongful intention to get a false claim from the Opposite Party. As such, the complainant is not entitled to the relief claimed for.  Hence, the Opposite Party has repudiated the claim in question vide letter dated 4.3.2014 and duly intimated the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.R.K.Sharma Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant got his vehicle i.e. Car Indica Turbo bearing Registration No.PB02-AZ-7600, registered with Opposite Party vide insurance policy No. 235300/31/2012/6014 (Ex.OP8) for a period of one year from 2.3.2012 to 1.3.2013 for insured value of Rs.2,35,000/-. Complainant submitted that on 5.11.2012, at about 10.00 PM, he went to Mokha Hospital, Batala Road, Amritsar for buying certain medicines and parked the aforesaid vehicle there and when he came back, said vehicle was found missing from the place where it was parked and was stolen by some one. The complainant reported the matter to concerned Police Chowki Shivala Bhaiyan, Amritsar vide complaint dated 6.11.2012 Ex.C3 which was tagged by the police with FIR No. 446 dated 12.10.2012 under section 379 IPC with Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar, copy of which is Ex.C2. The Opposite Party was also informed in this regard. Said vehicle could not be traced out by the police and the police submitted untraced report Ex.C2 under section 173 Cr.P.C. with Ilaqa Magistrate. Report of CRO Branch, Amritsar in this regard  is Ex.C7 and the report sent by Commissioner of Police, Amritsar  to NCRB, New Delhi is Ex.C8. The claim was lodged with the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party issued letter dated 10.6.2013 Ex.OP9, letter dated 30.8.2013 Ex.OP11 and letter dated 11.10.2013 Ex.OP10. The documents which were required by the Opposite Party from the complainant, were supplied to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party vide letter dated 4.3.2014 Ex.OP12 treated the claim of the complainant as ‘no claim’ on the ground that the complainant has failed to supply the required documents to the Opposite Party. Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that the on receipt of the information regarding the theft of the insured vehicle of the complainant, the Opposite Party requested the complainant vide letter dated 10.6.2013 Ex.OP9, letter dated 30.8.2013 Ex.OP11 and letter dated 11.10.2013 Ex.OP10 to submit the relevant/ required documents, but the complainant not only supplied the required documents, but also did not submit any reply, as such failed to comply with the said request of the Opposite Party. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that Opposite Party got investigated the case and it was found that the complainant had already sold the vehicle in question to one Satwant Singh son of Swaran Singh, resident of 9, Police Colony, Outside Hall gate, Amritsar. In this regard, the complainant had already submitted the duly filled-in form to the Registering Authority Ex.OP2 for transfer of the vehicle from the name of the complainant to said Satwant Singh son of Swaran Singh, resident of 9, Police Colony, Outside Hall gate, Amritsar alongwith affidavit to this affect Ex.C3 and said Satwant Singh has also filed his affidavit Ex.OP4 to the affect that he has purchased this vehicle from Gagandeep Singh, complainant. Even the request was submitted by Satwant Singh to the Registering Authority i.e. DTO, Amritsar Ex.OP7 that he has purchased the said vehicle from Gagandeep Singh complainant, so the registration of the vehicle be transferred in his name. But the complainant has concealed all these facts from the Opposite Party. As such, the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. As such, the Opposite Party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that no doubt the complainant got his vehicle i.e.Car Indica Turbo bearing Registration No.PB02-AZ-7600, insured with Opposite Party vide insurance policy No. 235300/31/2012/6014 (Ex.OP8) for a period from 2.3.2012 to 1.3.2013. Said vehicle was stolen on  5.11.2012 when said vehicle was parked by the complainant at  Mokha Hospital, Batala Road, Amritsar. The matter regarding theft of vehicle in question was reported to the Police Chowki Shivala Bhaiyan, Amritsar vide complaint dated 6.11.2012 Ex.OP5 which was tagged by the police with FIR No. 446 dated 12.10.2012 under section 379 IPC, Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar, copy of which is Ex.C2. Said vehicle could not be traced out by the police and the complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Party. Opposite Party got the matter investigated and the Opposite Party wrote letter dated 10.6.2013 Ex.OP9, letter dated 30.8.2013 Ex.OP11 and letter dated 11.10.2013 Ex.OP10 to the complainant to submit the relevant documents, but the complainant did not supply the required documents nor even submitted any reply to these letters, to the Opposite Party. Apart from this, the complainant had already sold the vehicle to one Satwant Singh son of Swaran Singh, resident of 9, Police Colony, Outside Hall gate, Amritsar and the complainant  has already submitted Form 30 (Ex.OP2) in this regard for the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in question in the name of Satwant Singh alongwith affidavit Ex.OP3 that he   has sold the vehicle in question to said Satwant Singh. Satwant Singh has also filed an affidavit Ex.OP4 in this regard that he has purchased the vehicle in question from Gagandeep Singh complainant. Even Satwant Singh has filed an application to the Registering Authority Ex.OP7 for the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in question in the name of Satwant Singh. Not only this, even the claim intimation form Ex.OP6 was also filed by said Satwant Singh with Opposite Party in which said Satwant Singh has written that Satwant Singh was the driver of that vehicle at the time when it was stolen. All this shows that the complainant had already sold the vehicle in question to said Satwant Singh long time back i.e. in February, 2012 and these facts were not informed by the complainant to the Opposite Party. Therefore, the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question, that is why the complainant did not supply the relevant/ required documents which were demanded by Opposite Party vide letter dated 10.6.2013 Ex.OP9, letter dated 30.8.2013 Ex.OP11 and letter dated 11.10.2013 Ex.OP10, to the Opposite Party. So, the Opposite Party was justified in treating the claim of the complainant as ‘no claim’ vide letter dated 4.3.2014 Ex.OP12.
9. Consequently, we hold that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 18.02.2016.                                                                (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                    President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                               Member                         Member