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 section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he insured his vehicle Catterpiller JCB No.PB-03AT-0673 with the Opposite Parties for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- vide policy No.233700/31/2018/3190 valid for the period w.e.f. 29.12.2017 to 28.12.2018. The complainant alleges that said insured vehicle was stolen and the matter was lodged with P.S.Dharamkot vide FIR No. 29 dated 07.03.2018 under section 379 IPC and due information was given to the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties rejected the claim of the complainant without any rhyme or reason. Due to the aforesaid illegal and unwarranted acts of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension and agony. The complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to make the payment of the claim, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To pay the insured claim of Rs.7.50,000/- with regard to policy No.233700/31/2018/3190 valid for the period w.e.f. 29.12.2017 to 28.12.2018 of the insured vehicle alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim till its realization and also to pay Rs. 5 lakhs on account of compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint for the redressal of his grievance .
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable. Actual facts are that the complainant has concealed the true and actual facts from this District Consumer Commission. Perusal of the FIR No.29 dated 07.03.2018 shows that said JCB was not stolen, but was allegedly taken by the driver namely Raju son of Ganga Ram, resident of village; Chaudhara Gaon, District Sirsa (Bihar) and hence it is not a case of theft and is not covered under the insurance policy. Moreover, the loss of vehicle was occurred on 27.02.2018 and the matter was not informed to the Opposite Parties immediately as per the terms and conditions of the policy, within 48 hours. Even the police was informed after a delay of about 8 days, therefore, neither the insurance company could appoint the investigator in time nor the police could recover the vehicle as there was a long delay of 8 days in informing the police. The report of Investigator Sh.Kiranjit Singh Romana, dated 13.08.2018 is reproduced as under:-
“From above remarks, it is confirmed that JCB No.PB03AT-0673 of claimant Kashmir Singh was taken away by its driver Raju on night of 27.02.2018 and not stolen. He was employed as driver for last three months. The policy is yet to recover the JCB despite knowing the name and address of suspected accused Raju.”
Moreover, the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents to the Opposite Parties for processing and settlement of the claim and hence it is clear that the claim was not paid as the complainant himself failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the policy and did not inform and provided the necessary documents to the Opposite Parties within the stipulated period as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up 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 with cost was made.
3. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex.OPs1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs2 to Ex.Ops9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and also gone through the evidence produced on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the complainant insured his vehicle Catterpiller JCB No.PB-03AT-0673 with the Opposite Parties for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- vide policy No.233700/31/2018/3190 valid for the period w.e.f. 29.12.2017 to 28.12.2018. The complainant alleges that said insured vehicle was stolen and the matter was lodged with P.S.Dharamkot vide FIR No. 29 dated 07.03.2018 under section 379 IPC and due information was given to the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties rejected the claim of the complainant without any rhyme or reason. Due to the aforesaid illegal and unwarranted acts of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension and agony. The complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to make the payment of the claim, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has concealed the true and actual facts from this District Consumer Commission. Further complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which requires lengthy examination in chief and cross examination of the parties/ witnesses which is to be decided by the civil court and this District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. Further perusal of the FIR No.29 dated 07.03.2018 shows that said JCB was not stolen, but was allegedly taken by the driver namely Raju son of Ganga Ram, resident of village; Chaudhara Gaon, District Sirsa (Bihar) and hence it is not a case of theft and is not covered under the insurance policy. Moreover, the loss of vehicle was occurred on 27.02.2018 and the matter was not informed to the Opposite Parties immediately as per the terms and conditions of the policy, within 48 hours. Even the police was informed after a delay of about 8 days, therefore, neither the insurance company could appoint the investigator in time nor the police could recover the vehicle as there was a long delay of 8 days in informing the police. The report of Investigator Sh.Kiranjit Singh Romana, dated 13.08.2018 is reproduced as under:-
“From above remarks, it is confirmed that JCB No.PB03AT-0673 of claimant Kashmir Singh was taken away by its driver Raju on night of 27.02.2018 and not stolen. He was employed as driver for last three months. The policy is yet to recover the JCB despite knowing the name and address of suspected accused Raju.”
Moreover, the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents to the Opposite Parties for processing and settlement of the claim and hence it is clear that the claim was not paid as the complainant himself failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the policy and did not inform and provided the necessary documents to the Opposite Parties within the stipulated period as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
8. It is not disputed that the complainant insured his vehicle Catterpiller JCB No.PB-03AT-0673 with the Opposite Parties for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- vide policy No.233700/31/2018/3190 valid for the period w.e.f. 29.12.2017 to 28.12.2018. It is the case of the complainant that said insured vehicle was stolen and the matter was lodged with P.S.Dharamkot vide FIR No. 29 dated 07.03.2018 under section 379 IPC and due information was given to the Opposite Parties. Bare perual of the FIR produced on record as Ex.Ops3 clearly established that JCB No.PB03AT-0673 of claimant Kashmir Singh was taken away by its driver Raju on night of 27.02.2018 and not stolen. He was employed as driver for last three months and hence, we are of the view that the claim of the complainant does not fall within the terms and conditions of the policy. In this regard, the report of Investigator Sh.Kiranjit Singh Romana, dated 13.08.2018 is placed on record as OPs4 which also corroborated the FIR duly lodged the complainant himself with the police station to the effect that JCB No.PB03AT-0673 of claimant Kashmir Singh was taken away by its driver Raju on night of 27.02.2018 and not stolen which does not cover under the purview of terms and conditions of the policy as well as within the purview of this District Consumer Commission. As asserted in the FIR lodged by the complainant himself that the insured vehicle was stolen by his driver and taken away in Bihar and his whereabouts is not known and hence, the matter could not be processed for want of correct information of the accused. Hence, it clearly becomes a case replete with the elements of stolen of the vehicle forcibly as well as snatching, fraud, cheating and such disputes are certainly not adjudicable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies because the proceedings before the Consumer fora (now Commission) are summary in nature . In the case in hand e complicated questions of fact and law are involved, as has been discussed in an elaborate manner in the preceding paragraph, as such the parties are required to take their dispute to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction where the parties can lead elaborate oral and documentary evidence and where they will get an opportunity to examine their witnesses and cross examine the witnesses of the other party in order to elicit the truth. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
9. The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is not maintainable in this District Consumer Commission for its proper adjudication and the same stands dismissed. However, the complainant can get redressal of his grievance from the Civil Court/ or any other competent authority, in accordance with law. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. 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 the situation arising due to outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 01.02.2022.
