BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.149 of 2023

      Date of Instt. 28.04.2023

      Date of Decision: 23.05.2024

Vijay Jassal aged about 57 years son of Sh. Lachhman Dass resident of H.No.NB-357, Mohalla Santokhpura, Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Universal Sompo General Insurance Ltd. through its authorized         signatory, office No.103, First Floor, Ackrati Star, MIDC,    Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400093

2.       Universal Sompo General Insurance Ltd. through its Branch    Manager/authorized signatory, SCO-4, Second Floor, Ladowali Road, PUDA, Jalandhar, Punjab-144001.

3.       Lovely Autos, Maruti Arena, near Pathankot Chowk, Jalandhar,        through its authorized signatory.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Kuldip Bhatti, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. A. K. Gandhi, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

                   OP No.3 exparte.

Order

Jyotsna (Member)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant has purchased a vehicle Car Breeza bearing Registration PB-08-EP-8183 Jalandhar from Lovely vide invoice Autos No.027/VSL/2000311 dated 28.09.2020 at 4:35 P.M, for Rs.7,08,943/-. The complainant purchased the said vehicle from the OP No.3. After the purchase of the said vehicle the complainant has got insured his vehicle from opposite parties vide policy No.2367/64599216/S0/000 on dated 27.09.2021 on the assurances made by the OP No.3 as the OP No.3 is the authorized dealer of the OPs No.1 and 2. The said policy of the vehicle of the complainant was valid upto 27.09.2022. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant under loan hypothecation worth Rs.6,97,000/- with interest @ 7.75% per annum from State Bank of India, branch Tanda Road, Jalandhar. The complainant is still paying the EMI of the said loan amount to the bank. At the time of issuing the said insurance policy to the complainant, the OP No.3 party assured the complainant that the services of the Insurance Company are very good for the benefits of the policy holders and the OP No.3 allured the complainant and on his allurement the complainant got insured his vehicle from the OPs. On 17.12.2021 the complainant was coming from Airport Jalandhar on his vehicle bearing Registration Amritsar Car to Breeza PB-08-EP-8183 alongwith his friend and when the complainant reached in front of True Value Manawala G.T.Road, Amritsar and the complainant parked his vehicle on road side and went inside the True Value for doing his work. When the complainant came out side True Value after completion of his work at about 1:00 P.M. in the meanwhile two unidentified persons who were covered their faces with clothes and came to the complainant and out of them one person have forcibly snatched the key of the vehicle from the complainant, then the complainant opposed the said person but the second person pushed the complainant and while on seeing the person who snatched the key of the vehicle sit down driver seat of on the vehicle and the second person also sit alongwith him and both the persons ran away from the spot alongwith vehicle towards Manawala side. The mobile phone Make Iphone, cash Rs.8000/- and other relevant documents belonging to the complainant were also lying in the vehicle. Thereafter the complainant reported the matter to the police of P.S.Chattiwind, Amritsar (Rural) and the police has got registered a FIR No.234 dated 17.12.2021 u/s 379-B IPC against two unknown persons, on the statement of the complainant. Thereafter the police made the untraced report and presented before the court of Ms. Harpreet Kaur, JMIC, Amritsar and the Court approved the untraced report. Thereafter the complainant reported the entire matter to the OPs regarding theft case intimation and the OPs issued a claim No.CL21218644 to the complainant but till date no claim regarding the said vehicle has been released by the OPs to the complainant, even repeated requests and demands made by complainant. In the insurance policy of the said vehicle the OPs it has been clearly mentioned Anti theft device available" in its response the opposite parties have written: YES hence thereby the complainant is entitled to get claim as per the plan of the policy. The complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the entire claim amount of Rs.7,08,943/- of the vehicle as per invoice and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation/damages on account of harassment, mental tension and agony suffered by the complainant and the litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/- and loss due to negligence in services on part of the OPs to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @18% as claimed above.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.3 did not appear and ultimately OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present Complaint is false, vexatious and has been filed with a malafide intention to harass the OPs No.1 and 2 by misusing the process of law and to avail undue advantages. It is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Honorable Court and hence is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the present Complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs is liable to be dismissed. The claim of the complainant has treated as "No Claim" by the OPs No.1 and 2 and intimation regarding the same duly sent to the complainant by the OPs as the complainant failed to provide the certain Document as requested by the Investigator of the OPs, even the letter dated 23-06-2022 sent to the complainant by the OPs No.1 and 2. So, no cause of action has arisen against the OPs no.1 & 2 to file the present complaint. So the present complaint is liable to be dismissed in the light of the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant has not come before the Commission with clean hands. The complainant is himself guilty of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. It is the complainant who himself failed to supplied the certain document to the OPs No.1 & 2 intentionally. So the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is estopped by his own acts and conducts from filing the present complainant. The claim of the complainant has declared as "No claim" due to own act and conduct of the complainant as he failed to provide the requisite documents to answering OPs required for processing of the claim. So the complainant cannot be allowed to take the benefits of its own wrong. It is further averred that no cause of action has been arose against the answering OPs as the claim of the complainant has closed by the answering OPs as "No Claim" due to non submission of documents. So the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complaint is false and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. It is further averred that the present complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party. The state Bank of India is necessary party the present Complaint from whom the alleged Vehicle Loan has taken by the Complainant. But the Complaint failed to implead the same. So, the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle Maruit Breeza and insured with the OPs, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                It is admitted and proved fact that the complainant had purchased a Car Breeza bearing registration No.PB08-EP-8183 from OP No.3 on 28.09.2020 for a sum of Rs.7,08,943/-, which is evident from Ex.C-2. It is also admitted fact that the said car of the complainant was insured from OPs, which was valid from 27.09.2021 to 27.09.2022 and the same is evident from Ex.C-3. The complainant has alleged that the vehicle was purchased by him under loan hypothecation worth Rs.6,97,000/- with interest @ 7.75% per annum from State Bank of India, Jalandhar and the complainant is still paying the EMI of the said loan amount to the bank. Copy of the account statement is Ex.C-4. On 17.12.2021 at about 01:00 pm two unidentified persons, who had covered their faces with clothes, snatched the keys of the vehicle and thereafter both persons ran away from the spot alongwith vehicle. The mobile phone make Iphone and other relevant documents belonging to the complainant were also lying in the vehicle. The complainant got registered an FIR dated 17.12.2021, which is evident from Ex.C-5. The police made the untraced report and presented before the Court of Ms.Harpreet Kaur, JMIC Amritsar, which is evident from Ex.C-6. The complainant reported the entire matter to the OPs regarding theft and submitted claim before the OPs. The OPs issued a claim No.CL21218644 Ex.C-7 to the complainant, but till today the no claim of the said vehicle has been released. The complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs, but all in vain. Request has been made to allow the complaint.

7.                The contention of the OPs No.1 and 2 is that the claim of the complainant has been treated as ‘No Claim’ as the complainant failed to provide the certain documents as requested by the Investigator of the OPs, even after letter dated 23.06.2022 Ex.OP-2 sent by the OPs. In this letter, the OPs No.1 & 2 have demanded some documents within seven days i.e. Claim Form, Original FIR, Insured/Last User Statement, KYC Documents, Original RC/Keys, Spot Photographs, RC Particulars with blacklisting of the vehicle, Last existence proof/service history, Purchase Invoice, Eyewitness Statement, Original Key, Current/previous year policy, RTO Forms, Letter to RTO/SHO/NCRB and Statement of Account/Non-repossession Letter. The demand of Original Key by the OPs No.1 and 2 for settling the claim of the complainant, is not tenable as as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.21552 of 2017, case titled as 'Manjeet Singh Vs. National Insurance Company & Anr.' that 'the vehicle was snatched by the passengers, to whom the driver had given the lift. In those circumstances, it has been held that there was no fault on the part of the owner of the vehicle and if there is breach of any condition of the insurance policy, then the claim can be allowed on Non- standard Basis i.e. 75% of the IDV.'

                   It has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, cited in 2014 (3) R. C. R. (Civil) 610, in a case titled as “National Insurance Company and another Vs. Baldhir Singh and another”, wherein it is held as under:-

                   “Owner of car alighted from car for a while and kept the        key in key slot – Immediately two persons took away the car –       Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation – In the facts      of case it is not a case of lack of any care on the part of the           owner of the insured vehicle.”

                   In the present case, the complainant has alleged in the complaint that two unidentified person, who had covered their faces with clothes, came to the complainant and out of them one person has forcibly snatched the key of the vehicle from the complainant, then the complainant opposed the said person but the second person pushed the complainant and while on seeing the person, who snatched the key of the vehicle, sat down on the driver seat of the vehicle and the second person also sit alongwith him and both the persons ran away from the spot alongwith vehicle towards Manawala side. Despite the FIR, the person could not be traced and ultimately the untraced report was furnished and accepted. There was no fundamental breach of policy condition. It is nowhere alleged that there was any connivance of the complainant for the snatching of the vehicle. Immediately after the snatching, the FIR was registered and untraced report was accepted by the Court. So, it cannot be said that there was a lack of care. The insurance company has accepted the premium and cannot escape from its liability. Once the vehicle is not with the complainant and untraced report has been accepted by the Court then he has nothing to do with the keys and it will be of no use to keep the keys in his possession. More so, as per the statement of the complainant, the second key of the vehicle has already been submitted to the concerned official of OP. On the other hand, the OP No.3 has not come to contest the case. So, the version of the complainant remained un-rebutted and un-challenged, even then the same is required to glance very deeply. In such circumstances, the complainant is directed to furnish the documents i.e. copy of FIR, Aadhar Card, Untraced Report, photocopies of insurance policies, copy of letter intimate to RTA Office, Jalandhar, which have been filed in the file of the Commission except original key to the OPs No.1 & 2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and then the OPs No.1 and 2 will settle the claim of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the documents, failing which the OPs No.1 and 2 will be liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. It is further ordered that if the complainant is not satisfied with the settlement of the claim made by the OPs, then he is at liberty to file a fresh complaint. Original documents be returned to the complainant, if any required. Thus, the complaint of the complainant is disposed of. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

23.05.2024         Member                          Member           President