PER

Charanjit Singh, President

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Section 34, 35, 36 and 38 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant has purchased a truck bearing No. PB-11-CF having Engine No. B58183261E63517941, having Chassis No. MAT4663951E12526 having model No. Mini TATA Motors/LPT3118TC/56 Truck, type of body open manufactured in the year 2016. The truck was purchased by the complainant through with the help of financer HDB financial services Ltd, Amritsar. The vehicle of the complainant was insured with United India Insurance company Ltd, and the policy was effected from the date of commencement of the insurance on 10.8.2017 and was to be expired on midnight of 9.8.2019. Company is also doing work through his various agents in the area of Tarn Taran and agent who came to the house of the complainant in Tarn Taran convinced the complainant to obtain the insurance policy of opposite parties and after having trust and faith upon the assurance of agent the complainant agreed to insure his vehicle with opposite parties and had been paying the regular installments to HDB financial services up till the month of December 2018. The complainant has purchased the insurance policy no 2002042118p106444175 issued for the period of 10.8.2018 to 9.8.2019 on 12.9.2018 in the name of the complainant of the above detailed vehicle and during the continuation of the insurance policy, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen from a Gurdwara due to which the complainant reported the matter to Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran and a FIR No.233 dated 15.9.2018 was registered on the statement of the complainant of the unidentified person. On 10.1.2019 the police submitted the untraceable report u/s 173 Cr.P.C in which the investigating officer has detailed that in the CCTV Photos of Gurdwara the police saw that some unidentified person had stolen the vehicle of Gurdawra but the photographs of both persons were not cleared but after for investigation the truck and the accused could not be found and it is also mentioned by the police that as much time has passed after the registration of FIR but still the police did not find any clue against the accused due to which they prepared the untraceable report and submitted the same to the court. The office of SSP Tarn Taran also sent an application for acceptance of untraced report in case FIR No.233 dated 15..9.2018 u/s 379 IPC, P.S Sadar Tarn Taran and the untraceable report which is used to read as terminology as cancelation report was accepted by the court on 29.3.019. The complainant at the instance and assurance of agent of opposite parties as well as the opposite party No.1 and the police had suffered statement before the court regarding his no objection of the untraceable report/ cancelation report. The complainant gave the statement as agent as well as opposite party No.1 and the police had assured the complainant that the insurance amount can be given to the complainant only after the untraced report will be accepted by the court and believing the opposite party No.1 and the above detailed agent of opposite parties and the police, the complainant gave the no objection statement in the court after which the untraceable report was accepted by the court. The opposite party No.1 has not giving the assurance coverage benefit to the complainant on one pretext or the other although the opposite party No.1 had the knowledge that the complainant had proper and complete documents which includes registration certificate of the vehicle, authorization for goods vehicle permit, goods carriage permit for hire or reward, permit in respect of national permit multi Axle goods and proper driving license as well as insurance cover of opposite parties. The matter of theft of the vehicle of the complainant was also reported in the newspaper on 17.9.2018 and FIR No.233 dated 15.9.2018 u/s 379 IPC, P.S Sadar Tarn Taran was also got registered.  The complainant after purchasing insurance policy of opposite parties has paid premium as such the falls under the definition of consumer as per the consumer protection act. The rights of the complainant are fully protected under the provision of the consumer protection Act. At the time of selling the policy agent who came to the house of the complainant and assured that the policy of opposite parties is the best policy and there will be no harassment and delay in case of need of the customer or policy holder. After the theft of vehicle of the complainant on 12.9.2018 the complainant intimated the crime of theft to the police and also intimated opposite party No.1 and the authorized agent who had dealing with the complainant at the time of purchase of the policy but after preparing the case/claim file the opposite party No.1 has not reimbursed any loss to the complainant nor they have paid any insurance amount to the complainant for the assessed loss to the complainant. The complainant purchased the insurance policy for the insurance of his vehicle due to the good reputation and name of opposite parties but the authorized employs opposite parties are harassing, torturing the complainant and till this date have not provided appropriate service and shown complete inefficiency, defect and negligence in their service. Due to the wrong and unwarranted delay by opposite party No. 1 the complainant had to travel again and again to the opposite party No.1 by spending traveling expenses and the complainant has also been harassed due to the inconvenience and misrepresentation caused by employees of opposite parties to the complainant, have cause grave in convince, harassment, mental torture and also showed in efficiency, deficiency and lack of service and lack of honesty in your business. The complainant paid the full premium to agent of opposite party through his employee became the consumer of opposite party and his rights are protected as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant also signed the entire documentation at the time of purchase of the policy while sitting in the house of the complainant, made the payment of the premium of policy in the house of complainant and also received the policy paper in house. The opposite party has authorized agent who provides services to the customer of opposite party in the area of Tarn Taran by visiting their houses as did in case of the complainant, as such opposite party has been also getting work from the area of Tarn Taran through employee of opposite party as such opposite parties have working area in the city Tarn Taran from where he has been dealing with the customer of opposite parties. Even the complainant has visited the opposite party No. 1 many a times at his working place in Amritsar for his claim and the opposite parties demanded documents which were provided by the complainant and the opposite parties assured the file will be processed but opposite parties have been lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. The commission has got the jurisdiction to deal entertain and decide the complaint. The complainant has also served the opposite parties legal notice through registered cover on 4.7.2020 which was duly sent to correct address of the opposite parties. The postal receipts dated 1.11.2019 attached with the complaint. The complainant has also sent another correspondence on 3.9.2020 in continuation of the earlier notice 4.7.2020 and the response of the reply dated 21.7.2020 similarly the complainant also sent notice in continuation of the earlier notice on 11.9.2020. The OP through his counsel has sent written reply 21.7.2020 and On 5.10.2020 to the complainant and in the first reply admit the claim and demanded the required documents and when the same supplied as per their demand of the opposite parties in its reply dated 5.10.2020 has finally refused the claim of the complainant. The complainant has prayed as follows:-

1. The opposite parties may be directed to return back the entire amount of Rs. 20 Lacs to the complainant which was the insured amount.
2. The opposite parties may be directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant as damages for harassment and mental agony to the complainant and for other expenses incurred in the litigati9on etc. to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, copy of registration of vehicle Ex. C-2, copy of goods vehicle permit Ex. C-3, copy of goods carriage permit for hire and reward Ex. C-4, Copy of permit national permitmulti AXLE goods vehicle Ex. C-5, Copy of insurance cover in the name of complainant Ex. C-6, copy of driving license of complainant Ex. C-7, copy of news cutting dated 17 Sept. 2018 Ex. C-8, copy of tax invoice Ex. C-9, Copy of affidavit of Ipminderpal dated 29.1.2019 Ex. C-10, copy of Postal envelop dated 5.10.2020 Ex. C-11, Copy of reply of notice dated 5.10.2020 Ex. C-12, Copy of reply of notice dated 21.7.2020 Ex. C-13, copy of postal envelop dated 22.7.2020 Ex. C-14, Copy of correspondence dated 3.9.2020 Ex.C-15, Copy of correspondence dated 3.9.2020 Ex. C-15, Copy of continuation notice dated 11.98.2020 Ex. C-16, copy of Adhar Card of complainant Ex. C-17, Copy of Tax invoice 31.10.2016 Ex. C-18, copy of notice dated 3.7.2020 Ex. C-19, copy of FIR 233 dated 15.9.2018 Ex. C-20, Application from SSP to Halqa Magistrate dated 15.3.2019 Ex. C-21, Copy of application dated 12.10.2018 to the opposite party Ex. C-22, copy of application dated 12.10.2018  to opposite party Ex. C-23, Copy of report 173 Cr.P.C. Ex. C-24, Acceptance of untraceable report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Ex. C-25, Bank statement of Ipminderpal Singh Ex. C-26.

2        Notice of this complaint issued to the opposite parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has tried to conceal the material facts. In number of judgments it has been held that any person who approaches the court with unclean hands is not entitled to get any relief. As per order dated 29.03.2019 of Hon'ble Court of Smt. Amandeep Kaur, ACJM, Tarn Taran, the FIR was recommended by the police to be cancelled and the complainant suffered statement that he is agreed with the cancellation report submitted by the police and he has no objection if the cancellation report is accepted. Accordingly, the Hon'ble court has accepted the cancellation report mentioned above vide order dated 29.03.2019. As such, in the event of cancellation of the FIR itself, the alleged loss/theft stands unproved and it is clearly evident that the vehicle in question was never stolen. It further stands proved that the complainant had lodged a false FIR to get a false claim from the OP Ins. Co. which was later on got cancelled in-connivance with the police authorities as there was no accused in the present case and in fact no crime/theft was ever committed as alleged by the complainant. The present claim is not payable in absence of basic and corroborative evidence to establish the alleged theft. The untraceable report of the stolen vehicle is required to be accepted by the concerned Magistrate as provided under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the NCRB report is also required to be issued accordingly. The complainant has not submitted any document/order to comply with the aforementioned requirements. As such the complainant is not entitled to the relief claimed for. The complainant has violated the basic terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question. As per the terms and conditions of the current insurance policy, condition No.1 provides that the intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle in question is required to be given immediately to the insurance company. The vehicle in question was allegedly stolen in the intervening night of 12/13^th September, 2018. The complainant failed to report the alleged theft immediately to the concerned police station, rather the FIR was lodged with the police station on 15.9.2018 after an unjustified delay of more than 2 days. Moreover, the complainant also failed to intimate the alleged loss immediately to the insurance company instead intimation of the same was given by the complainant to the OP on 12.10.2018 after an unjustified delay of more than 29 days. Hence, the claim in question is not payable due to omission of the complainant on both accounts as mentioned above. The complainant has himself violated another condition of the policy i.e. "Duty care" and failed to take reasonable care of his vehicle. The complainant handed over only one original key of the vehicle in question to the OP and failed to provide another one given by the manufacturer of the vehicle. The complainant never lodged any complaint with the concerned authority regarding missing second original key and also failed to give any justification for the said omission. As per terms and conditions the policy in question, it is the duty of the insured person to take all reasonable steps save the vehicle from loss or damage and maintain it in efficient condition. But in sheer negligence, the complainant has violated the basic condition of the insurance policy. As such the present claim is not payable at all. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint. As per claim manual and set procedure of settlement of Theft claims, on mishappening or any loss, immediate notice in writing is to be given by the insured to the nearest office of the Insurance Company and on receipt of the intimation in writing, the surveyor is deputed by the Insurance Company for making assessment of the loss to pin point the net liability. The net liability is arrived at on the basis of survey and upon verification of requisite documents after deducting the depreciation etc, the claim is recommended by the surveyor subject to terms, conditions and exclusion clauses of the policy in question. Moreover, the Insurance Company with the help of police authorities has to try to trace the stolen vehicle which is only possible if the loss is intimated within stipulated time. In the present case, since the complainant failed to intimate the alleged loss immediately to the insurance company and intimated the same to the OP after an unjustified delay of more than 29 days, the complainant has not given any opportunity to the Insurance Company to make efforts to trace the vehicle and adopt the aforesaid procedure to quantify the loss on the basis of terms, conditions and exclusion clauses of the policy in question. On account of breach of fundamental condition of the policy in question, no liability can be entertained and the complaint is not maintainable. The contract of insurance is based on utmost faith and in this regard it is submitted that by concealing material facts it is apparent that the complainants have used fraudulent means for getting wrong claim. As per general conditions of the contract of Insurance as well as terms and conditions of medi-claim policy, it has been clearly held that the insurance Co. will not be liable to pay any claim if the claim is found to be in any respect fraudulent or any one act is done on his behalf to take benefit under the policy, all the benefits under the said policy shall be forfeited. As the claim is not payable, therefore, no consumer dispute survives. Hence, the complainant has no right to file the present complaint. As the claim has been found not payable in the light of aforesaid findings, therefore, there is no deficiency or delay on the part of opposite party. The parties are governed as per terms and conditions of contract of insurance and exclusion clauses thereof. The complainant has violated the basic terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question. Condition No.1 provides that the intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle in question is required to be given immediately to the Insurance Company.  The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties have placed on record Affidavit Ex. OP1, 2/1, Certified copy of Insurance policy Ex. OP1, 2/2, Certified copy of Terms and Conditions Ex. OP1, 2/3, Copy of intimation letter Ex. OP1,2/4, copy of order dated 29.3.2019 Ex. OP 1, 2/5.

3        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record and

4        In the present case, there is no dispute that the truck bearing registration No. PB-11CF-5911 was got insured by the complainant from opposite parties vide insurance cover copy which is Ex. C-6. The complainant has placed on record Ex. C-12 i.e. reply dated 5.10.2020 to the legal notice by the opposite parties addressed to Sh. Abhinav Sharma Advocate Tarn Taran counsel for complainant and pleaded as follows:-

“You are requested to advise your client to adopt any legal Method/way and get the order dated 29.3.2019 corrected/ rectify ( as per report submitted by the concerned police whatever perspective) so that the claim of your client be considered n that perspective.

As such, vide Ex. C-12, the opposite parties told to get the order dated 29.3.2019 corrected/ rectify ( as per report submitted by the concerned police whatever perspective) and except the above said document, the opposite parties have not demanded any other document which shows that the complainant has submitted all other documents with the opposite parties except the mentioned above. However, from the perusal of the file, it reveals that repudiation letter has not been placed on record either of the party and the the claim of the complainant has not been decided so far and the same is still pending.  On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the complainant alleged that the complainant has supplied all the requisite documents to the opposite parties in time and during the pendency of the present case have supplied copy of order dated 5.8.2023 passed by the court of Sh. Bagicha Singh Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Tarn Taran for correction of order dated 29.3.2019. In case Balu Waman Kadam vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. IV (2013) CPJ 16A (CN) (Mah.), the matter was similar, wherein the Insurance Company was asking the complainant to submit the documents again and again and the complainant was alleging that he had already submitted the requisite documents to the Insurance Company. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra disposed of the matter, by directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant within one month on receipt of the required documents from the complainant. 

5        While relying upon the above said authority, the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh passed the similar orders in case M/s Trends, through its Proprietor vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Consumer Complaint No.245 of 2015 decided on 04.08.2017; and M/s Gurbir Rice Mills v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Consumer Complaint No.404 of 2016, decided on 09.10.2017, directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant after submission of requisite documents by the complainant to it. 

6        In view of our above discussion as well as keeping in view the ratio of above said judgments, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the Insurance Company be directed to decide the claim of the complainant, after the complainant submit all the requisite document.

7        In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to submit the requisite document i.e. order dated 29.3.2019 corrected/ rectified as per reply to notice Ex. C-12 to opposite parties for deciding the claim within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and on approaching the complaint for supplying the requisite document, the opposite parties will issue proper receipt acknowledging the same. The opposite parties shall decide the claim of the complainant within a further period of one month therefrom and in case of failure on the part of the opposite parties the claim case of the complainant deemed to have been accepted.  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 Commission.

Announced in Open Commission

22.2.2024