DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 13
Instituted on: 10.01.2017
Decided on: 26.04.2017
Leela Dhar aged about 62 years son of Sat Pal, resident of Aggarwal Street No.2, Club Road, Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office: Railway Road, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.
..Opposite party
For the complainant : Shri S.S.Punia, Adv.
For OP : Shri G.S.Sibia, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Shri Leela Dhar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting insured his Maruti Swift VDI car bearing registration number PB-13-V-9495 from the OP vide policy number 1117843115P103218901 for the period from 26.6.2015 to 22.6.2016. Further case of the complainant is that when on 8.2.2016 he was coming from Samana to Sangrur, then some persons snatched the car of the complainant on the way, of which FIR number 20 dated 8.2.2016 was recorded at PS Sadar, Sangrur. It is further stated that the complainant gave intimation to the OP immediately, who assured that the claim will be settled shortly. Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice dated 31.5.2016 upon the OP to pay the claim amount, but nothing happened despite sending reminders dated 28.7.2016 and 5.10.2016 and then the complainant received a letter from the Op whereby they demanded non traceable certificate, duplicate key of the car, which was dully supplied. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant received another letter dated 23.11.2016 from the OP requiring the document, but nothing was paid despite best efforts of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of incident till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the Op into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the car in question is insured with the OP. It is further stated that the complainant gave the intimation to the OP on 13.4.2016 i.e. after the delay of more than two months. After getting the intimation, the OP appointed the surveyor, who reported that at the time of theft, the said car was registered as a private car, but it had been used by the insured for hire and reward purposes, which is a violation of limitation as to use of policy. It is stated that the insured informed the insurer after the gap of 65 days, which is also violation of condition number 1 of the policy. As such, it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17 documents and affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/12 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.
5. It is an admitted fact that the car in question was insured with the OPs under the policy as mentioned above. The case of the complainant is that on 08.02.2016, when he was coming from Samana to Sangrur, then some persons snatched the car of the complainant on the way and as such, he lodged FIR number 20 dated 8.2.2016 and intimated the OP to pay the claim, but the grievance of the complainant is that the claim was not paid/settled, despite the fact the complainant submitted all the required documents such as, non traceable report, duplicate key etc. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated as the complainant got insured the car as a private vehicle, but the same was being used as a taxi i.e. for hire reward and that the complainant gave intimation after a long period as the car in question was snatched on 8.2.2016, whereas the complainant gave intimation to the OP on 13.4.2016, as is evident from the copy of intimation Ex.OP-2, which has been produced on record by the OP. Further it is the own case of the complainant in the FIR, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-6 that he was using the car as a taxi at the time of incident on 8.2.2016 and the persons who hired the car of the complainant as a taxi snatched the car from the complainant. Ex.C-14 is the copy of registration certificate of the car in question, which clearly shows that the car in question was registered as a private car, but was being plied as a taxi by the complainant. Further the fact that the car was being used as a taxi is also supported by the own statement of the complainant, which is on record as Ex.OP-7, whereby it has been clearly stated by the complainant that when he stopped the car on the way, then he left the key of the car intact in the car and due to that they ran away with the car. We have also perused the copy of claim note, wherein it has been clearly stated by the investigation agency i.e. Bee Vee Investigation Agency that at the time of theft, the said car was registered as private car, but it was being used by the insured for hire or reward, which is a clear cut violation of the policy conditions. Further the complainant has violated another clause of the policy, whereby it has been stated that the complainant had to intimate about the incident immediately, but admittedly, he intimated the OP about the incident after a gap of 65 days. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not intimate the OP immediately and due to that the Op was deprived to search the car here and there. Further reliance can be placed on Joginder Singh versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And others 2008(4) CPJ 240 (NC), wherein it has been held that the repudiation of the claim is justified if insurance cover is not applicable for plying the vehicle for hire or reward as the car in question was insured as a private car. Further the learned counsel for the OP has cited Shriram General Insurance co. Ltd. Versus Mahender Jat 2015(1) CPJ 74 (NC), wherein it has been stated that in case of theft of the vehicle, the complainant is bound to give notice of theft in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of the theft and admittedly the intimation of theft was given to the insurance company 21 days after the theft. Thus, it was held that the claim has rightly been repudiated. The same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in Radha Mohan Sharma versus National Insurance Company Limited 2016(1) CLT 363 (NC). The learned counsel for OP has also cited Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sanjay Bhagwar Malwade 2015(4) CPJ 188 (NC), wherein it has held that if the key of the vehicle is left in the vehicle, then it is also a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. In the circumstances of the case, we find nothing wrong on the part of the OPs in repudiating the claim of the complainant.
6. In the light of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
April 26, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
