Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)  on the allegations that he purchased motor cycle bearing RC No.PB-29Z-9555 vide Invoice dated 09.09.2017 worth Rs.1,31,709.12 from Bikram Sales Corporation and said vehicle was fully insured with Opposite Party vide policy No.411700/31/2018/ABRE/35909 dated 09.09.2017 valid for the period w.e.f. 09.09.2017 to 08.09.2018 and the complainant paid Rs.4208/- towards insurance premium. The complainant alleges that his namely Anmol Gill is residing in House No. 426, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh and he parked the insured vehicle  in front of his house on 11.02.2018, but said motor cycle was stolen by some unknown persons. In this regard, FIR No. 0056 dated 15.02.2018 was lodged by him with P.S.Chandigarh (West) Sector11, Chandigarh. Inspite of the best efforts by the complainant, the insured vehicle could not be traced and the police stated that they have submitted the untraced report in the court. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Party and completed all the formalities as required by the Opposite Party and also deposited the original RC  and key etc., but  till date, the Opposite Party has not paid the insured claim to the complainant regarding the loss of his vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party  for make good the loss regarding his insured vehicle, but the Opposite Parties  did not pay any heed  to the request of the complainant. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant is left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,29,874/- on account of loss of insured vehicle and Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation on account of mental tension, physical harassment and professional loss alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of loss till its realization or any other  relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.

2.       Opposite Party  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties; that no cause of action arose to the complainant against the Opposite Party as the matter regarding the claim is still pending for want of submission of documents from the insured and the Opposite Party has not repudiated the claim. The complainant has concealed the true fact from this District Consumer Commission. In fact the complainant has go insured  his  motor cycle bearing RC No.PB-29Z-9555 from Opposite Party vide policy No.411700/31/2018/ABRE/35909 dated 09.09.2017 valid for the period w.e.f. 09.09.2017 to 08.09.2018, but as alleged by the complainant, the report of theft to the police was made on 15.02.2018 i.e. after a delay of 4 days, but the complainant informed about the theft of insured vehicle on 19.02.2018 i.e. after 8 days. Thereafter, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 01.01.2019 requested the complainant to submit the documents (i) latest NCRB report showing current status of the vehicle (ii) Non traceable report from the court and other documents, but the complainant has not submitted the required documents with the Opposite Party, rather filed the present complaint and for want of required documents, the claim could not be settled till now. The complainant has not  complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. One of the condition of the insurance policy is that the information regarding the theft of vehicle be immediately intimated to the insurance company and hence, in view of this, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed  as there is a delay in giving intimation to the Opposite Party regarding the theft of the vehicle and delay in lodging FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle. On merits, the Opposite Party took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.           Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       In replication, the complainant has specifically pleaded that son of the complainant has gone to his house at Moga and when he came back from Moga to Chandigarh, then it came to his knowledge that somebody has stolen his bike and after that, he has also tried to trace out the same, but of no use and after that he has lodged the complaint and hence, there is no delay in filing the FIR. The Opposite Party  is making lame excuses to pay the insured amount. Moreover, whatsoever documents were required by the Opposite Party as per their own rules, the complainant submitted the same in the office of Opposite Party at Moga. Moreover, it is the duty of the Opposite Party to get other intimation  from the concerned police station, but till today no official of the Opposite Party ever visited to the concerned police station due to the reasons that the complainant has not greased their palms and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.      

4.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Anmol Gill son of the complainant Ex.C2  alongwith copies of documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C13 and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, Sr.Deputy Manager Ex.OP-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions filed by the parties and  gone through the documents placed  on record.

7.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant has  mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and  contended that  the written version  filed on behalf of 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 more, ld.counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant purchased motor cycle bearing RC No.PB-29Z-9555 vide Invoice dated 09.09.2017 worth Rs.1,31,709.12 from Bikram Sales Corporation and said vehicle was fully insured with Opposite Party vide policy No.411700/31/2018/ABRE/35909 dated 09.09.2017 valid for the period w.e.f. 09.09.2017 to 08.09.2018 and the complainant paid Rs.4208/- towards insurance premium. Further contended that son of the complainant namely Anmol Gill is residing in House No. 426, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh and he parked the insured vehicle  in front of his house on 11.02.2018, but said motor cycle was stolen by some unknown persons. In this regard, FIR No. 0056 dated 15.02.2018 was lodged by him with P.S.Chandigarh (West0 Sector11, Chandigarh. Inspite of the best efforts by the complainant, the insured vehicle could not be traced and the police stated that they have submitted the untraced report in the court. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Party and completed all the formalities as required by the Opposite Party and also deposited the original RC  and key etc., but  till date, the Opposite Party has not paid the insured claim to the complainant regarding the loss of his vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party  for make good the loss regarding his insured vehicle, but the Opposite Parties  did not pay any heed  to the request of the complainant. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Party clearly amounts to deficiency in service. It is further contended that son of the complainant has gone to his house at Moga and when he came back from Moga to Chandigarh, then it came to his knowledge that somebody has stolen his bike and after that, he has also tried to trace out the same, but of no use and after that he has lodged the complaint and hence, there is no delay in filing the FIR. The Opposite Party  is making lame excuses to pay the insured amount. Moreover, whatsoever documents were required by the Opposite Party as per their own rules, the complainant submitted the same in the office of Opposite Party at Moga. Moreover, it is the duty of the Opposite Party to get other intimation  from the concerned police station, but till today no official of the Opposite Party ever visited to the concerned police station due to the reasons that the complainant has not greased their palms and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

8.       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  the complainant has concealed the true fact from this District Consumer Commission. In fact the complainant has go insured  his  motor cycle bearing RC No.PB-29Z-9555 from Opposite Party vide policy No.411700/31/2018/ABRE/35909 dated 09.09.2017 valid for the period w.e.f. 09.09.2017 to 08.09.2018, but as alleged by the complainant, the report of theft to the police was made on 15.02.2018 i.e. after a delay of 4 days, but the complainant informed about the theft of insured vehicle on 19.02.2018 i.e. after 8 days. Thereafter, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 01.01.2019 requested the complainant to submit the documents (i) latest NCRB report showing current status of the vehicle (ii) Non traceable report from the court and other documents, but the complainant has not submitted the required documents with the Opposite Party, rather filed the present complaint and for want of required documents, the claim could not be settled till now. The complainant has not  complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. One of the condition of the insurance policy is that the information regarding the theft of vehicle be immediately intimated to the insurance company and hence, in view of this, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is a delay in giving intimation to the Opposite Party regarding the theft of the vehicle and delay in lodging FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle.

9.       Perusal of the contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant   shows  that  the written version  filed on behalf of 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.

10.     For the sake of arguments, for the time being, if the written reply filed by Opposite Parties is presumed to be correct, now come to the merits. It is not disputed that the  motor cycle bearing RC No.PB-29Z-9555 of the complainant was insured with the  Opposite Party vide policy No.411700/31/2018/ABRE/35909 dated 09.09.2017 valid for the period w.e.f. 09.09.2017 to 08.09.2018. It is also not disputed that during the policy period, said motor cycle was stolen, when it was parked  in front of his house on 11.02.2018, in front of House No. 426, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh. In this regard, FIR No. 0056 dated 15.02.2018 was lodged by him with P.S.Chandigarh (West) Sector11, Chandigarh. Inspite of the best efforts by the complainant, the insured vehicle could not be traced. The only ground for the non settlement of the claim of the complainant by the Opposite Party is that the report of theft to the police was made on 15.02.2018 i.e. after a delay of 4 days, but the complainant informed about the theft of insured vehicle on 19.02.2018 i.e. after 8 days. Thereafter, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 01.01.2019 requested the complainant to submit the documents (i) latest NCRB report showing current status of the vehicle (ii) Non traceable report from the court and other documents, but the complainant has not submitted the required documents with the Opposite Party, rather filed the present complaint and for want of required documents, the claim could not be settled till now.

11.     The first plea of the Opposite Party is that the complainant has not furnished the required documents for the settlement of the claim of the complainant, but we do not agree with contention of the Opposite Party because these required documents are already placed on record by the complainant at the time of filing the present complaint i.e  copy of letter for giving original RC and Keys Ex.C8, copy of untraced report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.C9 and other documents Ex.C10 to Ex.C13, except the NCRB report.  In this regard,  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 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 for want of NCRB report and other documents  and the complainant was forced to file the present complaint.

12.     With regard to late intimation to the police by the complainant, the Opposite Party has further taken the objection that delay in intimating regarding the loss in accident was fatal. On the other  hand,  it is the case of the complainant that as and when the son of the complainant went back to Chandigarh from Moga after 4 days, he found that the motor cycle in dispute was not there and he immediately lodged the FIR No. 0056 dated 15.02.2018 was lodged by him with P.S.Chandigarh (West) Sector11, Chandigarh. Inspite of the best efforts by the complainant, the insured vehicle could not be traced. In this way, we found that there is no intentional delay in lodging the FIR by the complainant, rather it is due to the reason  which was not within his control and hence we do not term it late intimation regarding theft of his insured vehicle.     However, the fact that the intimation regarding the accident has been given after 4 days of the occurrence is no ground to decline the genuine claim. Reliance in this connection can be had on National Insurance Company Limited versus Kamal Singhal IV (2010) CPJ297 (NC) wherein the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi relying upon various decisions in the matter of (1) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. J. P. Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. (RP No. 643/2005), (2) Punjab Chemical Agency v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (RP No. 2097/2009), (3) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bahrati Rajiv Bankar, (RP) No. 3294/2009) and (4) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jeetmal, (RP No.3366/2009) and also judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Insurance Company Versus Nitin Khandewal IV (2008) CPJ 1(SC), has held that:

“the appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy to the loss caused to the insurer”.

13.     In such a situation the repudiation made by the Opposite Party-Insurance Company regarding genuine claim of the complainant have been made without application of mind. It is usual with the insurance company to show all types of green pasters 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.

14.     In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Opposite Party-Insurance Company have  wrongly and illegally rejected the claim of the complainant. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed with costs and the Opposite Party is directed to pay the insured amount of the vehicle in question, to the complainant i.e. Rs.1,29,874/- (Rupees one lakh twenty nine thousands eight hundred and seventy four only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 08.04.2019 till its realization, subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney, indemnity bond etc. 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 by the complainant.   Opposite Party 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. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party  within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

15.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State 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:01.02.2022.