DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Consumer Complaint Case No: 493 of 2010] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 04.08.2010 Date of Decision : 31.08.2012 -------------------------------- Ajeet Paul Singh s/o Balwinder Singh, Additional Manager, TATA Tele Services Limited, SCO No. 232-233-234 Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, at present House No. 2251, Sector 49-C, Chandigarh. ---Complainant VERSUS 1] The Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, City Centre Branch Office, G.T. Road, Panipat (Haryana) through its Branch Manager. 2] The Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited, Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, SCO 145-146, Top Floor, above VLCC, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Munish Goel. Counsel for Complainant. Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for Opposite Parties. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Parties on the grounds that, the Complainant is the owner of a Maruti Zen Car (Model: 1999) bearing Regn. No. DL-6CE-9454 and the same was insured with the Opposite Parties branch office Ludhiana from 15.5.2007 to 14.5.2008 vide insurance cover note no. 2534077 dated 15.5.2007 and thereafter, on renewal for an IDV of Rs.1,18,000/- (Rs.98,000/- towards the value of the vehicle + Rs.20,000/- towards accessories) vide proposal –cum- cover note bearing no. 108000174801 dated 15.5.2008 valid from 15.5.08 to 14.5.09 under comprehensive insurance covering risk for accident clause or damage and liability for 3rd party risks during the period of the policy. The copy of the registration certificate, insurance cover note from 15.5.07 to 14.5.08 and 15.5.08 to 14.5.09 are annexed at Annexure C-1, C-2 and C-3 respectively. As the Complainant was out of station before the expiry of the previous policy, so he called the Panipat office of the Opposite Parties and got the insurance done on 14.5.08 at Panipat and received the cover note (Annexure C-3) after paying a premium of Rs.5406/- to one Mr. Vikas Sharma, who personally delivered the cover note Annexure C-3 to the Complainant at Chandigarh on 18.5.2008. Unfortunately, on 25.5.2008, the car of the Complainant, which was parked in front of SCO No. 811, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh, was taken away by some unknown person, while the Complainant himself was away to Sector 7, Chandigarh. On coming to knowledge of the happening of the theft of the car, the Complainant, immediately, called the Police at No.100. Thereafter, after having searched for the vehicle, the Complainant lodged an F.I.R. with the police vide no. 243, dated 30.5.08 under Section 379 IPC. A copy of the F.I.R. is annexed at Annexure C-7 with the complaint. The Complainant claims to have intimated the theft of the car to the Opposite Party No.1 and filed a claim for the loss suffered by him. The Opposite Party demanded a number of documents from the Complainant vide their communication dated 10.7.2008, which is duly supplied by the Complainant. The Complainant had also submitted the untraced report dated 8.9.2008 with the Opposite Party No.1 so as to facilitate the claim process of the loss of the Complainant. The Complainant claims that after dilly-dallying for a considerable time, the Opposite Parties failed to settle the claim and repudiated the same, vide their communication dated 28.11.2008. Aggrieved of the act of not entertaining the genuine claim of the Complainant, the Complainant has filed the present complaint, seeking following reliefs:- [a] To pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.1,18,000/- i.e. value of the stolen car; [b] Interest @18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.1,18,000/- from the date of theft, till it is paid; [c] To award compensation/ punitive damages quantified to Rs.50,000/-; [d] To grant cost of proceedings reckoned to Rs.10,000/-; The complaint of the complainant is duly verified and supported by his detailed affidavit. 2. The Opposite Parties have contested the claim of the complainant by filing their joint reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the Complainant to file the present complaint as the cover note issued to him was cancelled abinitio. Therefore, no contract came into existence between the parties and no insurance policy was issued on the basis of this cover note. A specific letter dated 31.5.2008 was written to the Complainant through which he was informed about the cancellation. Thus, there being no occasion to issue the insurance policy, hence, no deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Parties. Furthermore, the objections with regard to the territorial jurisdiction and the present complaint involving complicated questions of fact and law requires to be adjudicated upon by a civil court are mentioned. Finally, the objection with regard to non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties is also taken. On merits, the Opposite Parties have repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the each averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply have admitted to the issuance of cover note no. 2534077 dated 15.5.2007 was issued by the Agent of the answering Opposite Party namely Sunil Kumar s/o Raghbir Singh, resident of #278, Saini Colony, Karnal for the car in question and thereafter, the cover note no. 108000174801 dated 15.5.2008 was not accepted by the company as there was no NCB. This fact was intimated to the Complainant by this Agent immediately and the Complainant was also sent a letter dated 31.5.2008 simultaneously. The Agent returned the premium amount in cash to the Complainant and also took the original cover note from the Complainant. The original cover note is claimed to be annexed as Annexure R-3. The Opposite Parties claims that as there was no existence of any insurance policy of the Opposite Parties with the Complainant hence the answering Opposite Parties were not liable to indemnify the Complainant for the losses suffered by him due to the theft of his vehicle. The Opposite Parties have also taken objection to the effect that the Complainant was not prompt in informing either the Police as well as was also not prompt in intimating the Opposite Parties about the happening of the theft of his vehicle. As there was considerable delay, hence the Opposite Parties is covered as per the orders of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dharam Singh and Anr., III (2006) CPJ 240 (NC). The Opposite Parties have also taken objection to the effect that no risk is to be assumed unless the premium is received in advance, in case the policy is to be renewed by the same company from which the previous existing policy was taken. In the present case, the Opposite Parties has cited clause 64VB of Insurance Act to fortify its claim and the same is found reproduced in Para 3 of their reply on merits. Thus, claiming the present complaint to be false, frivolous and bad in law prayed for the dismissal of the same with costs. 3. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions. 4. The Opposite Parties have taken preliminary objection to the effect that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this Complaint, as no cause of action has accrued against them at Chandigarh. However, we feel that as the car of the Complainant had got stolen in front of SCO No. 811, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh, and this fact is found corroborated from the F.I.R. No. 243 of 30.5.2008 of PS Manimajra, Chandigarh (Annexure C-7). Thus, this objection of the Opposite Parties is out rightly rejected. 5. The second objection taken by the Opposite Parties with regard to the existence of insurance cover for which the Complainant claims to have paid the premium of Rs.5406/- and also claims to be in possession of the original cover note issued to him sounds doubtful for the reasons that the cover note that the Opposite Parties claims to have taken back from the Complainant after having returned the premium amount in cash to him and subsequently, canceling the same, is found annexed Annexure R-3; whereas, the cover note claimed to be the original one by the Complainant has been produced as Annexure C-3A while tendering additional evidence. 6. Faced with this situation, and finding that the veracity of these two documents could only be established by leading detailed evidence alone. We feel that the present case deserves to be adjudicated upon by a civil court. As both the parties have claimed their documents to be the original one, we feel it would not be fair and just to make any comment about the same. 7. In the light of above observations, we dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs. However, the Complainant is at liberty to seek remedy on the same cause of action before an appropriate court of law. 8. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 31st August, 2012Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
