Haryana

Karnal

CC/114/2019

Chetan Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

J.P. Duhan

13 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 114 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.26.02.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 13.01.2020

 

Chetan Sharma son of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma resident of House no.608, Gali no.3 R.K. Puram, Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company through its Branch office Meera Ghati, above OBC Bank Karnal through its Branch Officer.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri J.P. Duhan Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Kiran Singh Advocate for opposite party.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05-AR-7306 and the same was got insured with OP, vide policy no.261301/31/2016/9006, valid from 10.11.2015 to 09.11.2016. On 26.03.2016 at about 1.00 p.m. after parking the motorcycle went in the office of the company situated at shop no.20, Sector-8 market, Karnal and about one hour when he returned back, the motorcycle was not found and the same was stolen by some unknown person. The complainant informed the OP in this regard and also lodged the FIR no.0308 dated 13.04.2016 in the Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal regarding the theft of his motorcycle. On asking of the OP complainant completed all the formalities so required and submitted all the relevant paper in the office of the OP. After receiving the said documents the OP assured the complainant that they would certainly pass the theft claim of the said vehicle. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP so many times and requested to make the theft claim of the said vehicle but OP did not pay the claim and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Lastly, OP repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 31.03.2017 on the false ground. The police of Civil Lines Karnal has submitted the untraced report before the Hon’ble Court of Ms. Shikha, learned C.J.M. Karnal vide order dated 08.10.2018. After receipt of the untraced report the complainant approached the OP and requested to settle the claim but official of the OP flatly refused to accept the genuine request of complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP company after receiving the intimation regarding the theft of the insured vehicle has requested the complainant, vide letter dated 06.03.2017 to submit the documents like affective driving licence of the insurer, effective registration certificate of the vehicle insured on the date of theft 26.03.2016, both original, but the same were  never submitted by the insurer and after complying with the terms of the insurance policy in claim cases the insurance company has repudiated the claim of the insurer as per law as no claim and the said intimation dated 31.03.2017 has been conveyed to the complainant Chetan Sharma the insurer in which the reasons for no claim and closure of the file was properly explained and cited in the intimation. It is further pleaded that although the policy dated 10.11.2015 cited by the complainant has been issued by the OP but the complainant was not having effective registration on the date of alleged theft i.e.26.03.2016 and thereafter clandestinely the complainant to play mischief with the law had got issued registration no.HR-05-AR-7306 on 04.04.2016 and the complainant has been using temporary mark HR-99-XQTP-1526 in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is further pleaded that the alleged theft was not reported by the complainant to the OP company within the statutory period of 48 hours and even though the complainant alleges the theft to have happened regarding the Motor Vehicle on 26.03.2016, the FIR no.308 dated 13.04.2016 clearly shows the malafide of the complainant in playing mischief with the authorities of the state just to gain wrongfully by way of filing false claim on the insured vehicle with the OP. It is further submitted that the complainant was given frequent communication by the OP company to submit the requisite documents but the complainant failed to do so and thereafter in compliance of the rules and regulation the insurance company rightly closed the claim file as ‘No Claim.’ It is further submitted that the mere submission of untraced report by the police did not raise any presumption of relief to the complainant as the bare reading of the FIR no.308 dated 13.04.2016 discloses the fact that the complainant was not having either the effective Driving Licence nor the effective Registration Certificate and the complainant was using the temporary mark which was only valid for one month from the date of purchase of the vehicle valid till 09.12.2015 and as such the version of the complainant is itself misleading and malicious. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed the same on 20.09.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Dinesh Jain Senior Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 12.12.2019.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant got insured his motorcycle with the OP, vide policy no. no.261301/31/2016/9006, valid from 10.11.2015 to 09.11.2016. On 26.03.2016 the said motorcycle was stolen by some unknown person has taken place. The complainant sent the intimation to the OP in this regard and completed all the formalities but OP did not pay any claim to the complainant and repudiated the same, vide letter dated 31.03.2017 on the false grounds.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP, in brief is that complainant has failed to submit the requisite documents with the OP for processing the claim of the complainant. Complainant was not having either the effective Driving Licence or the effective Registration Certificate at the time of accident. Hence, the claim of the complainant is not maintainable and the same was rightly repudiated.

9.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question was stolen by some unknown person during the subsistence of the policy. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP, vide letter dated Ex.C4 on the grounds mentioned as under:-

“Incident of theft was occur on 26.03.2016 whereas you have given intimation of theft to us only on 09.05.2016 i.e. after 45 days. As per policy conditions it should be immediate or maximum within 48 hours from the time of theft.

As per FIR, before incident Mr. Chetan has driven the vehicle upto market, so a copy of you driving licence is required, you have not submitted the same.

As you are well aware that as per Motor Vehicle Act temporary R.C. are valid only upto thirty days from the date of purchase of vehicle. In this case you have purchased the vehicle on 09.11.2015 but fail to produce R.C. which was valid on date of incident i.e. 26.03.2016.

Vehicle’s untraced report in original under section 173 Cr.P.C. duly approved by Chief Judicial Magistrate/Metro Politian Magistrate.

Keeping in view the above, we have closed claim file as ‘No Claim.’

 

10.            OP in its written version pleaded that at the time of incident, complainant was plying the vehicle in question without getting it registered with the office of Registration Authority. Thus, the complainant was not entitled to the benefit of insurance. In Narinder Sing Versus New India Assurance Company Limited and others, Civil appeal no.8463 of 2014 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.09.2014 held that vehicle was granted temporary registration for one month, which expired on January 11the, 2016. The vehicle met with an accident on February 2^nd, 2016 that is after 22 days on expiry of temporary registration. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that using a vehicle on the public road without any registration is not only an office punishable under section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy contract. In the present case complainant has purchased the vehicle on 09.11.2015. The motorcycle of the complainant was stolen on 26.03.2016 but till the incident complainant has not applied for Registration Certificate to the Registration Authority. This is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as well as of the Motor Vehicle Act. The abovesaid authority is fully applicable to the case in hand.

11.            In view of above law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, facts and circumstances of the case, complainant totally failed to prove his case by any cogent and believable evidence. Hence there was no deficiency on the part of the OP in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

10.            Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:13.01.2020

                                                                        President,

                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr.Rekha Chaudhary)

           Member                      Member