State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohindra Pal Singla vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 21 July, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 166 of 2014
Date of institution : 21.02.2014
Date of decision : 21.07.2015
Mohinder Pal Singla aged about 65 years son of Pritam Chand,
resident of H.No. B-XI/1207, St. No.1, K.C. Road, Barnala.
.......Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Head Office New India
Assurance Building 87, M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai-400001 through
its Managing Director.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, College
road, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch near Bhagat Singh
Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Barnala through its Branch Manager.
......Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
20.01.2014 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Barnala.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. T.P. Singh, Advocate
For the respondent : Smt. Sonia Madan, Advocate for
Sh. R.S. Madan, Advocate
MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR, Member
ORDER
The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as the F.A. No. 166 of 2014 2 complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 20.01.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (hereinafter referred as "the District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No.25 of 2013,vide which, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act 1986(in short 'the Act') against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) on the averments that he had purchased a new truck/trolla bearing No. LPT-2515 from Indra Auto Sales Ltd., Lahori Gate, Patiala, vide bill dated 17.06.2010 for an amount of Rs.13,75,609/- bearing chassis No. MAT426031AIF19663 engine No. B59145200ID62872515. He also got fitted the body thereon, by spending an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- and also got it registered with the office of Registering Authority (MV) Barnala and was given a registration No. PB- 19-E-9432. He purchased the truck for earning his livelihood, by means of self employment. He got an insurance policy through M/s Sundram Finance for an amount of Rs. 12,80,000/- vide policy No. 36130031110100000542 dated 06.06.2011 that was effective from 15.06.2011 to 14.06.2012 and paid Rs. 23,804/- as premium amount to the OPs. On 02.11.2011, the said truck alongwith other vehicles was parked in the premises of his shop at Dhanaula Kalan and complainant went to Barnala, after closing the shop and locking the main gate of the premises. On 03.11.2011, when he reached his shop alongwith his son Rajneesh Kumar at about 6.30 AM, he found that, the lock of the main gate of his shop/ premises was broken. He checked the premises and found that truck/trolla was missing. After that, he alongwith his son and his relatives made sincere efforts to trace out the truck, but unfortunately, that was not found. The truck was stolen by some unknown persons, by breaking the lock of premises during the night of 2/3.11.2011. An FIR No. 118 dated F.A. No. 166 of 2014 3 11.11.2011 under Sections 457/380 IPC was got registered at Police Station, Dhanaula. The intimation was also given to the OPs, in month of November, 2011. The police was not able to trace the truck and a cancellation report under Section 173 Cr.PC was sent by the police, to the Court of JMIC, Barnala. The JMIC recorded the statement of complainant and accordingly, untraced/cancellation report submitted by the police, was accepted vide order dated 16.05.2012. The complainant had already lodged the claim with the OPs and supplied the requisite documents. A surveyor Mr. K.S. Chandok was appointed by the OPs, to verify and inquire about the claim of the complainant, who had thoroughly investigated the matter. Despite making several requests and representations to the OPs, they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Vide letter dated 20.12.2012 OPs demanded untraceable report duly accepted by the Court, which was supplied to the OPs but Ops failed to settle his claim. The above said act of the OPs amounted to deficiency in services. Hence, he filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking, following directions against the Ops.
i. to pay to pay Rs.12,80,000/- as insured value of the vehicle; ii. Rs.3,00,000/- for mental shock, agony and harassment; iii. to pay Rs. 1,44,000/- as financial loss on account of the theft of the vehicle;
iv. to pay Rs.1,06,274/- as interest paid by the complainant to M/s Sundran Finance.
v. to pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
Therefore, total amounts comes to 18,52,274 along with interest @ of 18% to the complainant.
3. The complaint was contested by the OPs. They filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant was not a consumer as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. He purchased the truck for F.A. No. 166 of 2014 4 commercial purpose; Complaint was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. He had no cause of action to file the present complaint, as they had not repudiated the claim of the complainant. He was guilty of negligence as he had left the ignition key in the vehicle and that the complainant had not come before the District Forum with clean hands. On merits, it was admitted that complainant subscribed the insurance policy bearing No. 361300311101000000542 dated 06.06.2011 for period one year i.e. 15.06.2011 to 14.06.2012. An FIR No.118 dated 11.11.2011 was got registered at police station Dhanuala and as per that the said truck/trolla parked in the premises of the insured along with five tractors and two trollas, some unknown persons took away the truck in question from the said premises in intervening night of 2/3.11.2011. JMIC Barnala had accepted the untraced report of the vehicle. OPs demanded the untraceable report from the insured/complainant which he failed to submit to OPs. Shri. K.S. Chandok was appointed to inquire and verify the claim of the complainant. Complainant was guilty of negligence, he left ignition key in the vehicle. There was no delay on their part, moreover, complainant had failed to submit the required documents in time to facilitate the settlement of the claim. OPs were entitled for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for being dragged into unwarranted litigations.
4. In support of averments, the complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with other documents Ex.C1 to C-26. On other hand the OPs had tendered into evidence Mr. Dhalwal Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OP1 along with surveyor report Ex.OP2 and closed his evidence.
5. After going through the allegations alleged in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum did not find any deficiency on the part of OPs and dismissed the complaint as referred above. F.A. No. 166 of 2014 5
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides have carefully gone through the record of the case
7. The complainant has alleged in the grounds of the appeal that the Distt Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant had failed to give information of the theft immediately after the incident. Complainant had filed his detailed affidavit CW1/A, in which he deposed that on 2.11.2011 the said truck along with other vehicles was parked in the premises of his shop. Next day i.e.3.11.2011 he along with his son reached at shop at about 6.30AM and found that lock of the main gate of the shop was broken; he checked the premises and found that truck was missing. He made the best efforts to find the truck with his son, friends and relatives but all in vain which resulted to some delay to report the matter to the police.
8. Complainant proved on record F.I.R No 118 dated 11.11.2011 as Ex C6. It was lodged 9 days after the incident. Complainant failed to give the sufficient reason regarding the delayed information to the police. Further, complainant had also failed in reporting the theft to Ops in time by which the complainant deprived the Ops of its right to investigate the matter immediately after the theft. A reference has been made to the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission passed in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane reported in IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC) held that:-
In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the Police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the Police to trace the car. F.A. No. 166 of 2014 6 Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the Policy as it deprives the insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle.
9. In the present case, the complainant did not care to inform the police about the theft for 9 days and on 19.11.2011 information was given to the OPs. The complainant had failed to give immediate information to the police/OPs to enable them to go for investigation and chances of tracing the vehicle were marred. Therefore, the complainant had failed to perform his primary duty to inform the police and insurance company regarding the theft of the vehicle immediately and violated the terms & conditions of the policy. Accordingly, OPs were justified to repudiate the claim. The order of the Distt Forum is justified and is upheld. The appeal of the complainant is without merit and dismissed.
10. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 16.7.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) Presiding Judicial Member (JASBIR SINGH GILL) Member (SURINDER PAL KAUR) July 21, 2015 Member SK