BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No:66 of 2008.<br /> Instituted On: 09.06.2008.<br /> Date of Service: 11.07.2008.<br /> Decided On: 10.10.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Neelam Arora (aged 45 years) wife of Sanjiv Kumar son of Kimati Lal, resident of House No.612/5, Vedant Nagar, Moga, Distt.Moga.<br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> United India Insurance Company Limited, Shahid Bhagat Singh Market, Moga, through its Divisional Manager.<br /> Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member.<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Ashok Kumar Goyal, Adv.counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh.P.K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Smt. Neelam Arora complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against United India Insurance Company Limited, Moga through its Divisional Manager- opposite party (herein-after referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) directing them to pay Rs.1.25 lacs on account of repair and replacement of missing parts of truck and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Neelam Arora complainant got her truck bearing registration no. PB-29A/9764 insured with OP-Insurance Company vide policy cover note LDRO/2006 no.918165 having effective date of commencement for the period w.e.f. 1.3.2007 to 28.2.2008. That on the intervening night of 13.5.2007 the truck in question was stolen from G.T.Road, Moga. An FIR no.103 dated 18.5.2007 to this effect was got registered with P.S.City, Moga. Thereafter, due intimation was also given to the OP-Insurance Company in this regard. Lateron the said truck was recovered by the police on 25.5.2007 and as per the recovery memo, some parts were found missing from the truck in question. That the complainant took the truck in question on spurdari as per the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga. That again due intimation regarding recovery of truck in question by police with missing part as detailed in recovery memo was given to the OP-Insurance Company. That the surveyor of the OP-Insurance Company came at the spot and got photographs of missing articles/ things of the truck. That some of the missing parts/ articles of said truck were got recovered by local police and those parts were again handed over to the complainant on spurdari by the court. That the complainant submitted the estimated cost of missing parts and other documents & information to the OP-Insurance Company for the payment of the claim of estimated cost amounting to Rs.1.25 lacs for which he was entitled under the terms and conditions of the policy. That till today, the OP-Insurance Company did not give any explanation for not settling her claim. That the complainant visited the office of OP-Insurance Company time and again to settle the claim, but she got no response from them. That the act and conduct of the OP-Insurance had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to them for which she has claimed Rs.50000/- as compensation beside costs of litigation. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP-Insurance Company, who appeared through Sh.P.K.Sharma Advocate and filed written statement contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct; that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; that the complainant has concealed and suppressed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. In fact, on receiving the information of claim after seven days of loss from complainant regarding the theft of truck in question, they immediately appointed surveyor cum investigator M/s.Taneja Enterprises, Ludhiana for necessary investigation. It was averred that the truck was allegedly stolen on 13.5.2007, the FIR was lodged on 18.5.2007 and the complainant informed the OP-Insurance Company in this regard on 21.5.2007. As per the terms and conditions, the complainant must inform the police regarding theft within 24 hours. The complainant was also required to give intimation to the OP-Insurance Company immediately. But the complainant neither informed the police nor to the OP-Insurance Company debarring the police authority to initiate the action instantaneously. The aforesaid act and conduct of the complainant shows that she in connivance with her husband had stage managed the theft and recovery of the truck to extract money from the OP-Insurance Company and thereafter, in connivance with shop keepers/ spare parts dealer etc. fabricated the false and exaggerated bills to get the claim from the OP-Insurance Company with fraudulent means. Further, the documents submitted to the investigator purported to be invoices are merely estimates. The invoices handed over to the investigator were found to be exaggerated and prepared by the complainant for her own benefit. The other items for which the estimates submitted have never been supplied by pucca invoices/original bills. The estimates are the only prima facie evidence which did not show the actual purchase and replacement of the damaged parts. That the surveyor has assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.10200/-. Moreover, the complainant has not taken all the reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle in question because the vehicle was left on the road side unattended. At the time of theft of vehicle, it was neither in the custody of the owner nor in the custody of the driver. On merits, the OP-Insurance Company took up the same and similar pleas as taken by them in preliminary objections. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.<br /> 4. In order to prove her case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.A1, copy of cover note Ex.A2, copy of RC Ex.A3, copy of FIR Ex.A4, copy of attachment report Ex.A5, copy of notice Ex.A6, postal receipt Ex.A7, copy of insurance package policy Ex.A8 and closed her evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP-Insurance Company tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.M.R.Dhingra, Divisional Manager Ex.R1, letter Ex.R2, copies of terms and conditions Ex.R3, copy of report Ex.R4, affidavit of A.N.Taneja Ex.R5 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Ashok Kumar Goyal ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.P.K.Sharma ld. counsel for the OP-Insurance Company and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.Ashok Kumar Goyal ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OPs-Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service by not paying the loss caused to the truck in question duly insured with them. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. Admittedly, the truck in question was insured with the OPs-Insurance Company for the period w.e.f. 01.03.2007 to 28.02.2008. It is the case of the complainant that on the intervening night of 13.5.2007, the truck in question was parked by the driver and its cleaner outside the Truck Union Office at G.T.Road, Moga. It is mentioned in the FIR no.103 dated 18.5.2007 lodged with P.S.City, Moga that on the night of occurrence the driver of the truck did not sleep in the vehicle in question as he went to his village Lopan, Distt.Moga after leaving it unattended. Thus, it shows that at the time of alleged theft of vehicle, it was neither in the custody of the owner nor the driver. On 14.5.2007 when the driver of the truck came to Truck Union, Moga, the truck in question was not there and the same had been stolen by somebody. Although the alleged theft took on the intervening night of 13/14-5-2007, but Sanjay Kumar husband of the complainant lodged the FIR on 18.5.2007 i.e. after about 5 days of the occurance. No reasonable explanation has been furnished as to whey the alleged theft was not reported earlier to the police. Moreover, the complainant gave the information to the OPs-Insurance Company regarding the theft on 21.5.2007. Thus, it shows that the complainant willfully and intentionally gave the late information to the police as well as to the OPs-Insurance Company regarding the theft of his truck for the reasons best known to her.<br /> 8. Hence, the alleged theft took place due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the complainant. As per clause 5 of the insurance policy Ex.A8 (Ex.R3 same document), it is mentioned that <br /> ‘The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle insured or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle insured 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.’ <br /> <br /> 9. Thus, the terms and conditions of insurance policy Ex.A8 show that the complainant was required to take all precautions in parking the truck in question safely. Had she taken all the precautions while parking the vehicle and did not leave it unattended, the alleged theft of the truck would not have taken place. The aforesaid facts and circumstances show that the complainant has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy for the reasons best known to her. <br /> 10. Sh.P.K.Sharma, ld.counsel for the OPs-Insurance Company has further argued that in order to extract money from the OPs-Insurance Company the complainant has submitted the exaggerated bills by producing false and frivolous invoices/ estimates. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Insurance Company has full force. The report Ex.R4 of Sh.A.N.Taneja of Taneja Enterprises, Ludhiana surveyor shows that the net loss caused to the vehicle in question is upto the extent of Rs.10200/- whereas the complainant has claimed Rs.125000/-. Moreover, the surveyor recorded the statements of shopkeepers/ spare parts dealer etc. from whom the complainant taken the bills and produced for payment in which they stated that they have not received the actual amount mentioned in the bills from the complainant. The surveyor recorded the statement of M/s.Chawla Electric Works (Sheet No.24), M/s.Kharaiti Radiator Works, Moga (Sheet no.25) and M/s.Sharma Seat Maker, Moga (Sheet No.28) of the report Ex.R4, wherein they have denied having received the amount mentioned in the bills/ estimates. Thus, it shows that the complainant in order to fraudulently grab the claimed amount from the OPs-Insurance Company had produced the false and frivolous estimates/invoices. This circumstance shows that the claim filed by the complainant with the OPs-Insurance Company was not genuine. <br /> 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the OPs-Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that the OPs-Insurance Company has committed any deficiency in service by not making the payment of claimed amount. <br /> 12. To prove the aforesaid contention, the OPs-Insurance Company produced in evidence affidavit of Sh.M.R.Dhingra, Divisional Manager Ex.R1, letter Ex.R2, copies of terms and conditions Ex.R3, copy of report Ex.R4 and affidavit of A.N.Taneja Ex.R5. On the other hand, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.A1 and other documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A8<br /> 13. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:10.10.2008.<br /> hrg*<br />