The present complaint has been remanded by the Hon’ble  State Commission vide  Orders dated 08.10.2015  in First Appeal # 315 of 2014 and to give effect to the directives contained therein; we dutifully proceed ahead by way of re-adjudication of the present complaint on merits under the extant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986. For the purpose, we have carefully re-examined all the documents/evidence available on the proceedings-record and have also judiciously re-considered and perused the arguments as duly put forth (afresh) by the learned counsels for both the litigants and of course in the light of the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some of the documents ignored to be produced by them during the course of the present adjudication.

2.          Complainant Parminder Kaur  has filed the present complaint against opposite party u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act ( for short C.P.Act) to seek direction to the opposite party to release the insurance claim of Rs.6,12,463/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.in favour of stolen vehicle of the complainant bearing Registration No.PB-06-L-0074  Compensation alongwith litigation expenses is also claimed.

3.                The case of the complainant in brief is that she purchased a vehicle i.e. Tata Manza bearing Engine No.63148, Chassis No.04869 and the said vehicle was financed by the complainant from State Bank of India, Branch Gurdaspur. At  the time of purchasing the said vehicle, the officials of the opposite party No.1 had insured the vehicle of the complainant and the insured value was declared as Rs.6,12,463/-. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.16,854/- as premium on 24.2.2010 with the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 had insured the vehicle of the complainant vide policy No.200301/31/09/01/00006432 for the period with effect from 24.2.2010 to 23.2.2011 and cover note was duly issued by the opposite party No.1. At the time of taking the policy by the complainant from the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 had assured the complainant that all types of risks were covered under this policy such like accidental, theft, burnt etc. Unfortunately, on 11.2.2011, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen and on the next day, the complainant had lodged a complaint before the SSP, Gurdaspur and subsequently, FIR bearing No.12 dated 2.4.2011 was registered in police station Tibber. The complainant informed the opposite party No.1 regarding theft of the vehicle and submitted all the requisite documents to the opposite party No.1 as demanded by the opposite party No.1 and requested for disbursement of the claim. But the opposite party No.1 has not released the insurance claim in favour of the complainant inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant. The act of the opposite parties to withheld the insurance claim of the complainant on account of stolen vehicle of the complainant is illegal, null and void and against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

4.                Opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version in which it was submitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party for the period from 24.2.2010 to 23.2.2011. It is submitted that no theft or snatching of Tata Indigo car No.PB-06-L-0074 has been committed. There was some financial dispute between the husband of the complainant namely Sukhdev Singh and one Malook Singh s/o Bahadur Singh r/o Village Jogi  Cheema, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur who is the friend of the said Sukhdev Singh. Due to the financial dispute, said Malook Singh took away the vehicle in dispute from the custody of the complainant for money which has been taken by the husband of the complainant from the said Malook Singh. After the perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 2.4.2012, it is crystal clear that said Malook Singh friend of the husband of the complainant took the car in dispute from the custody of the complainant in account of this financial dispute. There is no offence of theft is committed by the Malook Singh. The car in dispute is still in the custody of the said Malook Singh. But the police did not take any step to recover the car in question from the custody of the said Malook Singh. The opposite party has got conducted the investigation regarding theft, through its investigator Royal Associates who investigated the matter and has given report dated 30.6.2012. The investigation report also confirmed that no offence of theft of the vehicle in dispute has been committed. Hence, the insurance company has rightly repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant vide letter dated 13.9.2012.

5.       Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant ex.CW1/A, copy of the RC Ex.C-1, insurance policy Ex.C-2., FIR  Ex.C-3, copy of the order dt.29.3.2012 Ex.C-4, copy of repudiation letter Ex.C-5, copy of the order Ex.C-6, copy of statement of the complainant recorded by additional CJM Ex.C-7 and copy of challan Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

6.       Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Baldev Singh, Divisional Manager Ex.OP1, affidavit of Kashmir Singh, Royal Associates Ex.OP2, report of investigator dated 30.6.2012 Ex.OP3, repudiation letter dated 13.9.2012 Ex.OP4 and copy of FIR Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence.

7.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint

8.       We find that the present complaint was admitted on 20.12.2012 (with its no. as: 538/2012 for the second time) wherein it had merely reported the simple ‘theft’ of the insured car on 11.02.2011 with its FIR # 12 U/s 365, 342, 379, 356, 148, 149 IPC getting lodged by the Police on 02.04.2011 although the related complaint was said to have been made to the District SSP on the very next day. However, in her affidavit in evidence (Ex.CW-1/A) filed on 16.05.2013 the complainant disclosed (FIR Ex.C3) that the Car in question was dishonestly and forcibly taken away/snatched from her husband Sukhdev Singh by one Malook Singh (an acquaintance) joined by other accomplices along with cash and gold-rings etc by alluring him to accompany them out in connection with his wife’s (complainant) transfer etc. She has further deposed that the accused Malook Singh could not be arrested (nor the Car could be recovered) and thus he was declared ‘Proclaimed Offender’ by the competent court on 10.12.2012 (Ex.C6, Ex.C7 & Ex.C8) and the case-file was ordered to be consigned to records for taking up again as & when requisite at the arrest and production of the accused before the Court. No subsequent progress/ status pertaining to the ‘closed’ case are produced on records of the present proceedings by any of the litigants but admittedly the car could not be recovered back from the accused Malook Singh & others. However, the complainant pursued her insurance theft-claim with the opposite party insurers who repudiated (Ex.C5) the same on 13.09.2012 to cause the prompt of the present complaint. In its written reply and the affidavit (Ex.OP1) in evidence, it has been deposed that the ‘Car’ in question was taken away by one Malook Singh (as still possessed by him) in settlement of some financial-dispute with his friend Sukhdev Singh (complainant’s husband). However, the OP insurers have failed to produce any cogent/acceptable evidence on records to prove the existence of the alleged ‘financial dispute’ and/or that the car was consent-fully handed over/delivered to Malook Singh in settlement of the alleged financial dispute. It is not understood as to how the OP insurers justify the repudiation/refusal of the ‘theft-claim’ in the absence of any cogent evidence of ‘consented’ delivery of the car and that too at the face of ‘admittance’ that the financial dispute was with the complainant’s husband Sukhdev Singh (and not with the complainant) from whom the car was forcibly snatched by first having it removed away ‘dishonestly’ from the complainant’s residence on a false pretext. The OP insurers have based the impugned repudiation Ex.OP4 on the investigator’s Report (Ex.OP3) and his accompanying affidavit Ex.OP2 duly deposing the contents of investigation. The surveyor in his report has simply made a ‘bald’ statement sans evidence of the alleged ‘financial’ dispute between Sukhdev Singh and the accused Malook Singh with no apparent attempt to break the silence (present the victim’s version) of complainant’s husband Sukhdev Singh since he has been righteously the most appropriate person to have clarified/explained the factual position but the Surveyor as well as the OP insurers have somehow preferred neither to produce his deposition/ even statement to support the imputations/allegations nor any reasons for this Lego-Fatal omission(s). To sum it up the OP insurers have failed in their attempt to prove that the ‘car’ was delivered in satisfaction of one financial liability and there has been no occurrence of ‘theft’ worthy of insurance–claim.   Moreover, the judgment as cited by the learned counsel (for the complainant) titled: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Rohit Kumar Gupta (NCDRC) 1994(1) CPJ 196 duly support/ help the complainant’s case version since here also the ‘car’ was taken away by an ‘acquaintance’ dishonestly never to be returned back and as such the contingency stood duly covered by ‘theft’ as per the illustration ‘D’ of Section 379 of the IPC and thus entitling the complainant to a favorable settlement of the insurance theft-claim as available in terms of the related Policy. Moreover, the related FIR # 12 could not reach its finality (legal conclusion on merits) in tracing the stolen car and as such the opposite party insurers shall be liable to settle/pay the impugned (insurance) theft claim.            

9.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party insurers have indeed bruised the consumer rights of the present complainant as envisaged under the Act through repudiation (and delayed too) of the insurance theft claim and thus we ORDER the OP insurers to settle and pay the full IDV claim in terms of the related Policy to the complainant besides to pay her Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment.

10.        Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                   President   

Announced:                                                      (Jagdeep Kaur)

February, 23 2016                                                              Member

*MK*