Punjab

Rupnagar

RBT/CC/18/199

ShriGurcharan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Com - Opp.Party(s)

Yogesh Gandhi adv

17 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA

Received by way of transfer Consumer Complaint No.199 of 2018

                                               Date of institution:22.03.2018

                                               Date of Decision:17.10.2022

 

Gurcharan Singh son of Sh. Piara Singh, resident of House No.559/702, Raj Transport Building, Gill Road, Ludhiana 

…….Complainant

Versus

 

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Micro Office, Old Tehsil Road, Phillaur having its through its Branch Manager  
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office at Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Regional Manager

…..Opposite Parties

 QUORUM:   

   HON’BLE MR. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT.

                   HON’BLE MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

PRESENT:

      

Sh. Yogesh Gandhi, Adv. for complainant

Sh. MR Saluja, Adv. for OPs

              
 

ORDER

RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant is a registered owner of vehicle bearing No.PB-10-CC-7713. The said vehicle was purchased and used by the complainant for earning his livelihood. The complainant has got his truck insured from OP, having its branch office at Phillaur vide policy No.2013823115P107701995 valid from 25.09.2015 to 24.9.2016 with IDV Value of Rs.6,50,000/- on payment of premium of Rs.26,712/- only two pages of certificate of insurance of GCV Public Carrier other than three wheeler package policy has been issued by the OPs without any terms and conditions of the policy and as such the terms and conditions, if any given in the insurance policy, are not binding upon the complainant as the same has not been communicated explained and read over to the complainant. From the date of purchase of the truck in question, the complainant has got the vehicle insured from the OP. Even, the previous insurance policy in the certificate of insurance referred above. Even, in the earlier policies not terms and conditions of insurance policies have been supplied, explained or communicated to the complainant. The premium of Rs.26714/- in respect of policy in question was paid at Ludhiana through cheque No.543130 of Punjab & Sind Bank, International Banking Division Branch, Gill Road, Ludhiana, by debiting from account No.01681000006181 on 25.9.2015 in favour of United India Insurance Company Limited. The policy has been delivered at 559/702, Raj Transport Building, Gill Road, Ludhiana by Shri Subhash Sachhar, Officer of the company who has previously posted in Ludhiana and then transferred to Phillaur. Shri Subhash Sachhar officer of the OPs was earlier insuring the vehicle in question when he was posted at Ludhiana and after his transfer has been procuring the business from Ludhiana and was also issuing the policy of the truck in question by receiving the premium from Ludhiana and delivering the policy at Ludhiana. This commission had got jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present complaint. A certificate to that effect issued by the Punjab & Sind Bank. The OPs have also insured the truck bearing No.PB-10-CC-7713 vide policy No.213823116P108269846 valid from 25.9.2016 to 24.09.2017 on receipt of premium of Rs.32,510/-. Even the previous policy No.201323115P107701995 is mentioned in the said policy. Only two pages of certificate of insurance of GCV Public Carrier other than three wheeler package policy has been issued by the OPs without any terms and condition of the policy and as such the terms and conditions, if any given in the insurance policy, are not binding upon the complainant as the same has not been communicated explained and read over to the complainant. The premium of Rs.32511/- in respect of policy in question was paid at Ludhiana through cheque No.1 of Punjab & Sind Bank, Ludhiana. The OP has supplied the entire claim file vide their letter No.LDRO;RTI;2017-18 dated 20.12.2017 under RTI Act. The said file so supplied under RTI Act referred above does not contain the terms and conditions of the policy so obtained by the complainant. Only two pages of the insurance policy are attached with the file supplied under RTI Act which shows that even the terms and conditions of the policy were not the part of the claim file at the time of processing the claim and as such the OPs are stopped from invoking the terms and condition of the policy unilaterally. The complainant has purchased the said truck in November 2007 and is the registered owner of the said truck bearing No.PB-10-CC-7713 since then. The said truck was being driven by Sardara Singh @ Sonu who is employed with the complainant for the past six eight years. Sardara Singh @ Sonu is holding a valid and effective driving license authorizing him to drive the truck in question. On 21.09.2016 the complainant got the truck No.PB-10-CC-7713 loaded from the godown of his transport company at Ludhiana. All the documents pertaining to the goods loaded in the truck i.e. bility, Challan, e trip forms were handed over to the driver Sardara Singh @ Sonu. After getting the diesel filled the truck in question was dispatched to Meerut on 22.09.2016. The said truck reached its destination on 23.09.2016. The goods were unloaded at the godown of Raj Transport Company at Meerut Sardara Singh @ Sonu driver of the truck parked the truck after locking and unloading the same near Shekhu Filling Station, Transport Nagar, Meerut at the place meant for the parking of the vehicle which is very nearer to the transport godown of the complainant went to his house. The truck in question remained parked at the above mentioned place till the time it got stolen on 24.09.2016 at about 23.30 hrs. Inspite of the best efforts made by Sardara Singh @ Sonu, the driver of the truck in question, the truck could not be traced and as such Sardara Singh @ Sonu informed the police control room telephone No.100 on 25.9.2016 from the telephone, which was duly lodged at register No.2, Intimation regarding the sending of information/notice at telephone No.100 to the police regarding the theft of truck had been obtained by the complainant under RTI Act from Police Control Room, Meerut. Thereafter, an FIR No.0485 dated 27.9.2016 was registered at PS Transport Nagar, Meerut under Section 379 IPC against the unknown person on the statement of Daulat Singh son of Kesar Singh, an employee of the complainant at Meerut. Daulat Singh has never declared himself to be the owner of the truck as alleged by the OP. The registration certificate, insurance and permit was lying inside the truck and the truck in question was locked at the time of theft. The said documents have been stolen along with the said truck. The complainant made hectic search at his level for some days but the truck in question was not recovered and had been stolen by unknown person. The intimation regarding the theft of the truck was sent to the OP telephonically on the same day and claim in writing was lodged by the complainant on 26.09.2016 with the request to register and settle the claim of theft of vehicle bearing No.PB-10-CC-7713 at the earliest. The complainant has supplied all the documents required by the OPs and their investigator from time to time including FIR, untraceable report, registration certificate, fitness certificate, permit, driving license and keys of the truck. The OP registered the claim of theft of the truck in question in their records and appointed M/s Hi Tech Investigators to investigate the theft claim of truck in question who had made throw investigation took the documents, recorded the statement and there after submitted his report dated 7.3.2017 under the signature of Sh. Vijay Nigam, prop with the following conclusion;-

“In view of above investigation/documents/findings/FIR/FR we conclude that theft of truck in question appears to be genuine”.

Copy of the investigation report has been supplied by the OP to the complainant under RTI Act vide their letter dated 20.12.2017. The perusal of the investigation report clearly depicts that the said investigator had confirmed the theft of the truck in question. The said investigator in his report dated 7.3.2017 confirmed the intimation of the theft at Police Control Room on 100 number on 25.9.2017 at 00.30 hrs by Sardara Singh through his mobile, NCRB report dated 14.2.2017 confirming that the truck in question has not been recovered, police final non traceable report No.06/16 dated 2.11.2016, lodging of FIR No.0485 dated 27.09.2016 with PS Transport Nagar, Meerut under Section 379 IPC and that both the keys of truck in question are with the insured. The police authorities of PS Transport Nagar, Meerut has made thorough investigation but could not trace the missing truck in question owned by the complainant and as such presented the cancellation report was accepted by the court of ACJM-8, Meerut under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on 24.3.2017, order of the court dated 24.3.2017 passed in case titled State Vs Unknown in FIR No.0485 PS Transport Nagar, Meerut. The complainant has completed all the formalities and supplied all the documents and information sought by the investigator and the OP, from time to time with the assurance that the claim will be settled at the earliest. It is further alleged that as per the copy of claim file supplied by the complainant vide letter bearing No.LDRO;RTI;2017-18 dated 20.12.2017 under RTI Act, Shri Parveen Kumar Goyal was appointed to assess the value of the truck in question insured vide policy bearing No.2013823115P107701995 valid from 25.09.2015 to 24.09.2016 with the IDV Value of Rs.6,50,000/- (policy renewed vide policy No.2013823116P108269846 valid from 25.9.2016 to 24.9.2017 for IDV Value of Rs.6,25,000/-) Shri Parveen Kumar Goyal has submitted his report dated 8.5.2017 with his observation that the fair market value of the truck prior to the loss on  24.9.2016 at 11.30 pm was Rs.5,75,000/- whereas the IDV at the time of loss was Rs.6,50,000/-. The report of Parveen Kumar Goyal dated 8.5.2017 is illegal, arbitrary and against all cannons of justice and equity since the same has been made without the verification of the truck after its theft on 24.09.2016 at about 11.30 pm as admitted by the said surveyor. Moreover, it is well settled law that in case of theft IDV Value at the time of the loss is to be paid which as per the insurance policy and as confirmed by Parveen Kumar Goyal, as such, assessing the fair market value of the truck is inadmissible and cannot relied. After the receipt of the report of the investigator, M/s Hi Tech Investigators dated 7.3.2017 and Parveen Kumar Goyal dated 8.5.2017 and after scrutinizing the documents detailed in the list of documents from Sr. No.1to 55 as per the copy of the list of the documents supplied under RTI Act and after due application of mind by officials of the OP No.1 the claim file of the complainant was approved for payment of Rs.5,75,000/- on the basis of survey report of Parveen Kumar Goyal against the IDV Value of Rs.6,50,000/- as per the office note duly signed by Shri Avtar Saroye, Asstt. Manager and Shri Rakesh Sharma, Divisional Manager, confirming the theft of the truck and that there is no violation of any terms and conditions of the policy since all the claim papers are in order by considering that the claim should be treated in the renewed policy otherwise the insured may claim for the refund of premium of Rs.32,511/-. Even the consent for Rs.5,75,000/- has been taken from the complainant against the theft claim of truck in question with the refund of Rs.32,511/- being the refund of premium of policy as the truck in question was stolen on 24.9.2016 along with letter of undertaking, letter of indemnify, letter of subrogation, documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership of the truck i.e. No.29 form No.30, affidavit, self declaration. Copy of the office note, list of documents in the file of theft of truck in question and copy of consent form, letter of undertaking, letter of indemnity, letter of subrogation, documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership of the truck in question for the kind perusal of this Court. There is no provision for supply of the keys of the vehicle to the OP under the policy obtained by the complainant. It is well settled law laid down by the appellate authorities constituted under Consumer Protection Act that the terms and conditions of the policy are not generated in case of theft of parked vehicle duly locked. When the theft of the vehicle is admitted by the OPs and confirmed by the investigator to be genuine and the claim has been approved and recommended for payment after due application of mind by the senior officer of the OP company in the rank Divisional Manager, then thereafter there is no question of calling upon the complainant to supply the keys of the vehicle. The OP illegally, arbitrarily and against the terms and condition of the policy with malafide intentions has called upon the complainant to supply the keys of the parked vehicle stolen. The complainant has supplied the keys of the vehicle to the OP. The complainant was surprised to receive the letter dated 7.8.2017 after the approval of the claim on 30.05.2017 calling upon the complainant to show cause that the keys are not original as both the keys differ in structure and appearance. The complainant send the reply to the letter dated 7.8.2017 by virtue of duly sworn affidavit under his signatures and duly attested by the Notary Public Ludhiana dated 31.08.2017 clearly stating that he has submitted the original keys and the said keys were never replaced/lost from the date of registration till the date of theft. The said affidavit that out of two keys one of the key was used regularly and as such it was repaired as broken from knobs and the second key is intact as supplied by the manufacturer. Inspite of the well reasoned reply dated 31.8.2017 the complainant was surprised to receive the letter dated nil whereby the OP had illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the complainant as no claim on flimsy grounds, illegally, arbitrarily and against all cannons of justice e and equity against the terms and conditions of the policy which were never supplied and the law laid down by the appellate authorities under the Consumer Protection Act on the ground that the complainant has not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and thereby violating condition No.5, on the ground that the keys were not original which amounts to violation of policy terms and condition No.5 & 6 ownership of the vehicle is doubtful. After the receipt of said letter dated nil the complainant had called upon the OP that they are liable to settle the claim as there is no alleged condition No.5 & 6 in the policy schedule cum certificate of insurance supplied to the complainant, there is no delay in lodging FIR, ownership is not doubtful and the keys submitted were original and were never replaced till the date of theft. Hence, this complaint. Vide this instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following relief:-

1.To pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- and refund Rs.32,510/- being the amount of premium received by the OP while insuring vide policy valid from 25.9.2016 to 24.9.2017 after the theft of the truck, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of lodging the claim and payment of premium till its payment. 

2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, negligence and mal trade practices adopted on account of which the complainant has suffered mental tension, torture agony and financial loss.

3. To pay Rs.33000/- as litigation charges.  

2. Upon notice, the OPs has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission; that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands as the complainant made false story of theft of his truck. The incident of occurrence of theft of his alleged truck has been proved to be false and thus the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is stated that complainant got insured his truck bearing No.PB-10-CC-7713 from the Branch Office, Phillaur of OPs vide insurance policy No.2013823115P107701995 effective from 25.9.2015 to 24.09.2016 and the said office falls within the jurisdiction of District Jalandhar. The premium of policy was paid and the claim was filed at Branch Office, Phillaur and they dealt with claim and all the documents were filled in that office regarding claim. The alleged theft of the insured truck was also occurred at Meerut and thus the Hon’ble District Forum of Jalandhar or Meerut has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The complainant is not entitled to claim because he has violated the condition No.5 of the insurance policy issued in respect of truck in question because the complainant has failed to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss and damage but he parked his insured truck in question at unattended place not guarded by any security guard and without locking the truck and thus he has contravened the term No.5 of the policy in question which reads as follow:-

The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss and damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP.

The complainant is not entitled to any claim because he has also contravened the term No.6 of the policy in question because the complainant has misrepresentation and is also guilty of submission of wrong material facts by supplying duplicate keys of the truck alleged to be stolen. In order to know the original or duplicate keys, the OPs got verified from SIFS, Forensic Science Laboratory, India, Jalandhar and Jahangir Nanda, Forensic Expert of SIFS India vide his report dated 10.11.2017 confirmed and concluded that the keys submitted by complainant of truck in question of make/model Tata 2515 are not the genuine but duplicate. The keys supplied by the complainant are different in shape and size and both the keys are not genuine and does not belong to company Tata but the same are locally made. The said forensic report contain 10 points on which the said forensic expert of the said laboratory has confirmed and concluded and that the keys supplied by the complainant was not original keys of Tata Company. Therefore, the duplicate keys representing to be original keys amounts to misrepresenting and guilty is guilty of making false representation and guilty of concealing true facts and thus is not entitled to any claim as he as made false representation. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered various documents. On the other hand, the OPs has also tendered documents in support of their evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
5.  From the perusal of the documents placed on record by both the parties, we feel that the complainant is failed to prove his case and is not entitled to the claim. Therefore, the complaint stands dismissed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
6.  

October 17, 2022

                                                                 (Ranjit Singh)

                                                          President

                                   

 

                                                                 (Ranvir Kaur)

                                                           Member