BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 665 of 2014

Date of Institution: 19.12.2014

Date of Decision: 15.09.2015  

Shri Rohit Uppal son of Shri Ravi Uppal, resident of 2437, Pakki Gali, I/s Sheran Wala Gate, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

United India  Insurance Company Limited, Batala Road, Amritsar through its Manager/ Principal Officer. 

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. S.K.Sharma, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Ms.Neena Kapoor, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Rohit Uppal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that  he is registered owner of Bajaj Pulsar 135CC Motor Cycle bearing registration No.PB-02-BG-3857. The complainant got this vehicle insured with the Opposite Party vide policy No. 2003023112P300705783 valid for the period from 21.9.2012 to 20.9.2013 for Rs.42,000/-, but inadvertently, the concerned official of the Opposite Party had issued the policy in the name of father of the complainant Ravi Uppal. Complainant alleges that during the validity period of the policy, the vehicle in question was stolen by someone on 21.6.2013 in the evening time between 5 to 6 PM, when it was parked in Singh Complex at Hussainpura Chowk, Near Post Office, Amritsar and it was not traced out despite best efforts of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant had lodged FIR No. 47 with Police Station ‘E’ Division, Amritsar regarding the theft of his vehicle. The complainant had also duly informed the Opposite Party regarding the theft of the vehicle and requested to the Opposite Party to make the payment of the insured claim of his vehicle and also completed all the formalities, but the Opposite Party put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Police could not trace out the vehicle of the complainant and ultimately, the police authorities issued untraced certificate under section 173 Cr.P.C dated 1.2.2014. A legal notice was also served upon the Opposite Party on 27.10.2014 to make the payment of the claim amount, but to no affect.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to make the payment of insurance claim amount of Rs.42,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The complainant has concealed the material facts meaning thereby has violated the terms and conditions of the policy covered funder the insurance policy. The case of the insured has not been entertained due to inordinate delay of 7 days  in reporting the matter to the Opposite Party from the date of theft, alongwith a motive to cheat the Opposite Party committed a fraud with the company. The complainant has endorsed the said insurance policy in his name on 25.6.2013 and after endorsing the same in his name on 25.6.2013 he gave the intimation of theft on 28.6.2013 to the Opposite Party to take the fraudulent claim, whereas the date of theft is 21.6.2013 and even in the intimation given by the complainant, he has mentioned the wrong number of the motor cycle which was not insured with the Opposite Party. The intimation was not given at the earliest which is mandatory for the investigation process by the surveyors. The Opposite Party has appointed Sh.Sahil Sharma, Advocate as Investigator who has clearly mentioned  in his report the claim to be ‘No Claim’ as the stolen vehicle was not insured on the date of theft in the name of the complainant. The complainant approached the Opposite Party with a malafide motive to cheat  the company by making policy endorsed in his name after the theft and also giving the intimation very late and no reasons have been given for intimating the Opposite Party so late and the  claim could not be entertained  and the same is not  legally payable.               While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Baldev Singh, Divisional Manager Ex.OP1/A alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP5  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant got his vehicle Bajaj Pulsar 135CC Motor Cycle bearing registration No.PB-02-BG-3857 insured with the Opposite Party vide policy No. 2003023112P300705783 Ex.C3 valid for the period from 21.9.2012 to 20.9.2013 for a sum of Rs.42,000/-. Said motor cycle was stolen by some unknown person on 21.6.2013 when it was parked in Singh Complex at Hussainpura Chowk, Near Post Office, Amritsar. The complainant lodged report with the Police vide representation dated 21.6.2013 Ex.C10 which was tagged with FIR No. 47 dated 3.5.2013  Police Station ‘E’ Division, Amritsar. The Opposite Party was informed regarding the theft of the motor cycle vide letter dated 28.6.2013 Ex.OP1. The police could not trace out the vehicle and they issued    untraced certificate Ex.C12. The claim was lodged with the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party  did not settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant issued letter dated 20.8.2014 Ex.C4 and also served legal notice dated 27.10.2014 Ex.C5, but the Opposite Party did not settle the claim of the complainant.      Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that there was inordinate delay of 7 days in reporting the matter of theft of the insured vehicle of the complainant to the Opposite Party. Theft took place on 21.6.2013 whereas the intimation was given to the Opposite Party on 28.6.2013 vide letter Ex.OP1. Further there was motive to cheat the Opposite Party. The insurance policy of the vehicle in question was in the name of Ravi Uppal. The complainant got the policy changed in his name vide endorsement dated 25.6.2013 and after endorsing the same in his name on 25.6.2013, the complainant gave intimation of the insured vehicle on 28.6.2013 to the Opposite Party. So, on the date of theft of vehicle i.e. 21.6.2013 the policy was in the name of Ravi Uppal. Not only this, in the intimation letter Ex.OP1, the complainant has mentioned the wrong number of motor cycle i.e. motor  cycle bearing No.PB-02BG-3758 instead of PB-02BG-3857, the actual number. Opposite Party  denied that inadvertently the Opposite Party had issued policy in the name of father of the complainant. Opposite Party appointed Sh.Sahil Sharma, Advocate as Investigator, who clearly mentioned in his report dated 26.8.2014        Ex.OP3 that the  claim be treated as ‘No Claim’ as the complainant did not approach the Opposite Party with clean hands. No reasons have been given for intimating the Opposite Party so late. As such, the claim is not legally payable. Resultantly, the Opposite Party has treated the claim of the complainant as ‘no claim’. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that no doubt, the vehicle of the complainant i.e. Bajaj Pulsar 135CC Motor Cycle bearing registration No.PB-02-BG-3857 was  insured with the Opposite Party valid for the period from 21.9.2012 to 20.9.2013 for a sum of Rs.42,000/- vide policy No. 2003023112P300705783 Ex.C3. As per the complainant’s version, said vehicle was stolen on 21.6.2013 when the same was parked in  Singh Complex at Hussainpura Chowk, Near Post Office, Amritsar by some unknown person. The complainant lodged complaint  with the Police vide letter dated 21.6.2013 Ex.C10 which was tagged with FIR No. 47 dated 3.5.2013  Police Station, Kotwali, Amritsar. The Opposite Party was informed regarding the theft of the motor cycle vide letter dated 28.6.2013 Ex.OP1, after a lapse of period of 7 days and no explanation was given by the complainant for intimating the Opposite Party so late.
9. From the entire record, it is clear that the insurance policy of the vehicle in question was in the name of Ravi Uppal i.e.father of the complainant. Theft of the vehicle took place on 21.6.2013. The complainant got the insurance policy transferred in his name  vide endorsement dated 25.6.2013 from the Opposite Party and thereafter, gave intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle to the Opposite Party on 28.6.2013 and the complainant concealed these facts because the complainant was fully known that the vehicle had already been stolen on 21.6.2013 and he got the  insurance of the policy of the vehicle in question transferred to his name from the name of his father Ravi Uppal on 25.6.2013. At that time, why the complainant did not inform the Opposite Party that the vehicle had already been stolen on 21.6.2013. So, the complainant got the insurance policy in question  transferred in his name on 25.6.2013 by concealing the material facts, that is why, he gave intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle in question to the Opposite Party on 28.6.2013  after getting the insurance policy transferred in his name on 25.6.2013. The complainant gave intimation to the Opposite Party regarding theft of his vehicle on 28.6.2013 vide letter Ex.OP1 i.e. after a lapse of a period of 7 days and no explanation has been given by the complainant for not intimating the Opposite Party immediately. As per the insurance policy, the complainant was required to intimate regarding theft/ loss of the vehicle in question to the Opposite Party in writing within 48 hours. But in the present case the intimation was given to the Opposite Party for the loss of the vehicle after a lapse of period of 7 days which amounts to clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and the Opposite Party has been deprived of their legal right to make the proper investigation of the loss of the vehicle and to make efforts to trace out the vehicle. Apart from this, no NCRB report  has been produced by the complainant regarding theft of the vehicle nor the complainant has produced any untraced report under section 173 Cr.P.C, i.e.challan which the police has presented before Ilaqa Magistate.  It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission in case Joginder Singh Versus New India Assurance Co.Ltd. 2013(1) CPJ 69 (NC) that where there is unexplained delay in giving intimation to the opposite party as well as police regarding theft of  vehicle, it amounts to breach of policy condition and the opposite parties i.e. insurance company is justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant because opposite parties have been deprived of its right to make efforts to locate or find out the stolen vehicle and of thorough investigation of the case because in the mean time, vehicle could have been sold to kabaria or has been disposed of. Same view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case United India Insurance Company Limited Versus M/s.Harchand Rai Chandan Lal 2004(IV) CPJ 15 (NC) as well as by Hon’ble National Commission in first appeal no. 321 of 2005 titled as NIA Versus Trilochan jane, IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC). Hon’ble National Commission has further held that in the said case, insurer i.e. insurance company would be within its right to decline to settle claim even on ‘non standard basis’. Similar are the facts of the present case.  The complainant could not explain why he did not inform the opposite party about the theft/ loss of his insured vehicle for 7 days and this delay of 7 days remained unexplained.
10. Keeping in view  all these facts, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party was justified in treating the claim case of the complainant as ‘No Claim’. Resultantly, we hold that there is no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 15-09-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member