Haryana

Panchkula

CC/230/2017

HARPREET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PARMOD BALI

30 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.        

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	230 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	16.10.2017
Date of Decision	:	30.04.2018

                                                                           

Harpreet Singh, aged about 43 years S/o Sh. Jagjeet Singh, R/o House No.1419/B-1, Abdullapur Colony, Khadi Ashram, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Insurer of the Vehicle), Sector-2, Kasauli Road, Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.  

….Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Mr. Parmod Bali, Advocate for complainant. 

                        Mr. Ram Avtar, Advocate for OP.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1.     This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Harpreet Singh, complainant against Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the opposite party.

2.     It is stated in the complaint that complainant purchased the vehicle i.e. Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing No.HR-68-A-2430 in the year 2010 and the same was financed from Mahindera and Mahindra. Mahesh Chand deputed as the driver on the said vehicle, who worked upto 2010 to 2012. Mahesh Chand had filed a complaint under Section 323 and 506 IPC against Harpreet Singh and Others and vide order dated 10.11.2016, passed by Ms. Kirti Vashishta, learned JMIC, Kalka, the complainant was discharged. Later on the said vehicle gave the Vinay Kumar on contract basis till the vehicle was stolen in the night on 10.9.2014. On 11.9.2014 morning the complainant tried to search his vehicle and on 16.9.2014, the complainant lodged a DDR No.19, at Police Station Kalka. On 22.9.2014 the FIR No.121, P.S.Kalka was also registered. The complainant had paid all the installments of EMI without any break to Mahindra and Mahindra despite the said vehicle was stolen on 10.9.2014 and after the completion of entire installments, the complainant received NOC from the OP on 6.5.2015. The complainant on his doubt made complaint against his earlier driver Mahesh Chand and informed the RTO on 16.12.2014 about the theft/stolen of the vehicle in question. The said vehicle was insured with OP vide Policy No.243104/31/2014/1532 Branch Office Parvanoo dated 26.2.2014 valid upto 25.2.2015. The cancellation report was filed by the Police in case titled as ‘State Vs. Unknown’ on 6.2.2016. The complainant had lodged his claim with the OP and requested many times for his claim, but official of OP linger on the matter on the one pretext or another. The complainant never defaulted in the premium of the said policy. On 28.2.2017, the complainant filed RTI against OP regarding his claim and he came to know that the OP had rejected his claim. Hence, this complaint. 

3.     Upon notice, OP appeared and contested the complaint by filing his separate written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum.  It is stated by the OP that as per investigation report complainant Harpreet Singh registered owner and insured seems to be not actual owner of Bolero Pickup as admitted by the complainant harpreet Singh and Vinay Thakur in their respective statements that the Bolero Pickup was looking after and used by Vinay Thakur. The complainant claimed that pickup was stolen by his ex-driver Mahesh Kumar Gupta. The key of the pickup was given to Mahesh (Driver) by insured himself. So the claim is not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. The claim was rightly repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 15.9.2016. The complainant is not entitled to get the claim from the OP as the driver of complainant had committed criminal breach of trust and vehicle was not in possession, control and supervision of the complainant. The complainant has failed to take proper care to safeguard the vehicle in question, so violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.     The learned counsel for complainant placed on record the affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has placed on record the affidavit as Annexure R-A along with documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 and has closed the evidence.

5.     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record.

6.     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record available on the case file, it reveals that the complainant insured his vehicle with the OP which was stolen in the night on 10.09.2014. DDR No.19 was registered at Police Station, Kalka and FIR No.121 dated 22.09.2014 was also registered. The complainant lodged his claim with the Op and requested the OP many times to settle the claim but the Op did not settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant filed RTI against the Op regarding his claim and the Op had rejected the claim of the complainant on 15.09.2016 (Annexure R-2). It is not disputed that the complainant filed the present complaint on 16.10.2017 i.e. after more than 12 months from repudiation of claim. The Op has also filed the terms and conditions of the policy in question (Annexure R-3). Clause 7 of the terms and conditions of the policy reads as under:-

                “7.    xxxxxxxxx

It is also hereby further expressly agreed and declared that if the Company shall disclaim liability to the insured for any claim hereunder and such claim shall not, within twelve calendar months from the date of such disclaimer have been made the subject matter of a suit in a court of law, then the claim shall for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable hereunder.”

7.     Aforesaid clause makes it clear that complainant was under obligation to initiate proceedings for recovery of repudiated amount within 12 months from repudiation. This issue has also been decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as M/s Global Inspat Ltd. vs. Oriental Insurance Company in F.A. No.13 of 2013 decided on 10.09.2014, wherein it has been categorically held that:-

“In the case at hand the complainant was required, in terms of clause 6(ii) of the general conditions of the policy, to prefer the claim within 12 calendar months from the date of disclaimer or else the claim for all purposes was deemed to have been abandoned or the right extinguished and the liability ceased. The complainant’s claim is deemed to have been abandoned on completion of 12 months from 08.10.09 and it could not have been revived or extended by sending a legal notice. The complaint, therefore, deserved to be dismissed, as not having being filed within the period stipulated by clause 6 (ii) of the policy and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions cited hereinabove and ending with Himachal Pradesh State Forest Co. Ltd., (supra).”

8.     As complainant has not filed complaint within period of 12 months from the date of repudiation of part of the claim, complaint filed by complainant before State Commission was barred by limitation and complainant was not to get benefit of limitation provided under Section 24 (A) of Consumer Protection Act and learned State Commission has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed.”

11.        Resultantly, in view of the foregoings and entirety of the case, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable. So, the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.

12.        A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

30.04.2018                JAGMOHAN SINGH                       DHARAM PAL

                                MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                DHARAM PAL

                                                        PRESIDENT