Complainant Sampuran Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite party to pay Rs.4,00,000/- i.e. insured amount of the vehicle alongwith interest thereon @ 18% P.A w.e.f. 7.11.2012 i.e. date of theft till the actual date of payment. He has also claimed Rs.1 Lac as damages for harassment and mental agony caused to him by the opposite party and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased an insurance policy for his tractor bearing registration No.PB-06M/9166 year of manufacturing 2010, Engine and Chassis No.NRSU 196, make Mohindra-555 vide insurance cover note No.MOT/No.200202/31/11/000731 for the period w.e.f. 21.3.2012 to 20.03.2013 and paid premium of Rs.8865/- to the opposite party. He has further pleaded that the abovesaid tractor was stolen in the midnight of 21/22 December 2012 from village Bahadur Hussain, P.S.Ranger Nangal. He reported the matter to the local police on 22.12.2012 vide FIR No.123/2012 U/s 379 IPS P.S.Ranger Nangal. Thereafter, he informed the opposite party on 26.12.2012 and completed all the required formalities. Till today the tractor has not been recovered by the local police. Till date nothing has been done by the opposite party with regard to the settlement of the claim of Tractor Mohindra. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Aggrieved from the unwarranted and high-handed act and designs as well deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, he was constrained to file the consumer complaint No.310-2013 with date of institution as 18.09.2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur which was decided on 28.8.2014 and directed him and the opposite party to obtain the untraceable report and NCRB report from the police as soon as possible and handover the same to opposite party enabling the opposite party to decide his claim within 30 days from the date of receipt of untraceable report and NCRB report from him. Consequently he obtained the requisite Untraceable report dated 25.2.2015 and NCRB report dated 18.03.2015 from the concerned quarters and supplied the same to opposite party on the very next day after the receipt of the NCRB report. After more than two months had passed the opposite party did not settle his legal claim and have not paid the claim amount to him without any sufficient reason. He has next pleaded that he received a letter dated 24.6.2015 from the opposite party vide which his claim has been repudiated on the frivolous alleged ground of ‘being violation of policy terms and conditions keeping in view the vehicle being used for commercial use and as per the NCRB dated 1.05.2015 is not reported as stolen by the police department’ The stolen tractor was never used by him for commercial purpose. The NCRB certificate has been duly issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide letter dated 18.3.2015 reference No.1201844. The act of repudiation of his just and legal claim by the opposite party of the tractor is illegal, unlawful, null and void. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as the said insured tractor was used to be plied on hire with M/s.Jay Pee Cement Dump by the complainant Sampuran Singh through his son Gurmaj Singh. The said tractor was registered vide registration no.PB-06-M-9166 with the RA (M), Gurdaspur for agriculture/cultivation use in the fields, but it used to be plied on commercial basis, for loading/unloading of cement bags & being used on the roads, whereas this tractor was registered as tax-exempted vehicle to be used in the field for cultivation/agriculture. Secondly, this tractor used to be handed/driven by Mr.Gurmej Singh son of insured Sampuran Singh, under Driving Licence no.PB0620070017424 dated 16.07.2007, valid upto 8.4.2016, authorization to drive vehicles: M.C. with gears & LMVB only and not authorized to drive tractor as per this driving licence. But the insured Sampuran Singh used to ply this tractor for commercial use instead of agriculture use and he used to ply the tractor under drivenship/supervision of his son Gurmej Singh, who did not possess/hold driving licence for driving tractor. The Investigator has given his Investigation Report dated 23.06.2013 after conducting a detailed investigation regarding the factum of alleged theft of the abovesaid vehicle. On merits, it was submitted that as soon as the opposite party received information of loss to insured vehicle in question, due to the alleged theft, the opposite party deputed ‘Vigilant Detective Bureau’ for investigation of the Factum of theft and for securitization of the documents submitted by the complainant with the insurance company. The said Investigator has given his Investigation Report dated 23.06.2013, after conducting a detailed investigation regarding the factum of alleged theft of the abovesaid vehicle, but the opposite party could not settle the claim due to non-supplying the Untraceable Report and NCRB Report. It was correct that the complainant had filed the consumer complaint no.310-2013 dated 18.09.2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur, which was disposed of by the Hon’ble Forum with the directions to both the parties. As per the directions, the complainant was directed to supply the Untraceable Report and NCRB report to the insurance company as soon as possible the insurance company was also directed to decide the claim within 30 days from the date of receipt of Untraceable report and NCRB report from the complainant. As per the NCRB Report dated 1.05.2015, the alleged stolen vehicle has not been reported as stolen by the police. Hence, the claim of the complainant is not payable by the insurance company. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
- Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.
- Counsel for the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar Sharma Asstt. Manager of opposite party Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.
6. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides on the points of law and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care & caution on the points of fact, as placed before us. We find that the OP insurers disallowed the impugned Tractor Theft Insurance Claim vides repudiation letter Ex.C7 dated 24.06.2015 for of the two reasons (as addressed therein) being i) the Tractor in question was in commercial-use by the complainant in clear violation of the applicable Policy (terms and conditions) since the Tractor was registered for agriculture and forestry purposes only and duly availed the applicable tax-exemption and ii) the NCRB report of 01.05.2015 Ex.OP3 clearly mentions that the Tractor has not been reported as ‘stolen’ vehicle by the Police. Thus, the present repudiation has been based upon the ‘violation of Policy Terms’ and ‘non-concurrence’ on the question of ‘theft’ as per the NCRB report of 01.05.2015 as procured by the OP insurers. However, the complainant has simply relied upon i) the clubbed FIR # 123 of 10.11.2012 (Ex.C3) filed with the P.S. Rangar Nangal; ii) Un-Trace Report Ex.C5 dated 25.02.2015 and iii) the NCRB report of 18.03.2015; that all fade in evidentiary value at the face value of the Investigator’s Report Ex.OP8 duly supported by the complainant’s and his son’s statements exhibited as Ex.OP6 & Ex.OP7. It has been successfully proved on record that there have indeed been violations of the Policy terms as the Tractor insured and registered to be used only for agricultural and forestry purposes (and also availing ‘tax-exemption’ for the same) was factually used for commercial (other than agriculture) purposes. Moreover, the NCRB report as procured by the OP insurers clearly states that the Tractor in question has not been reported as stolen vehicle by the Police. Under the circumstances, the OP insurers have been legally entitled to have repudiated the insurance theft-claim in dispute.
7. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the OP insurers have justifiably repudiated the insurance claim on account of the violations of the policy terms and non-reporting (by the Police) of the Tractor in question as stolen vehicle in the NCRB report and thus ORDER for the dismissal of the present complaint with however no orders as to its costs.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
February 18, 2016 Member.
*MK*
