State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Shri Lakshmi Steel vs Tata General Insurance Company on 6 July, 2020
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018
Date of institution : 14.12.2018
Reserved on : 30.06.2020
Date of decision : 06.07.2020
M/s Shri Lakshmi Steel through its Proprietor Shri Abhay Jain, Shop
No.594, Nirankari Street-I, Millar Ganj, Overlock Road, Ludhiana
(Pb.)-141 001.
E-mail: [email protected]
.......Complainant
Versus
1.Tata General Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager, 3rd Floor, Shanti Towers, SCO No.37, PUDA Complex, Jalandhar, (Pb.).
E-mail: [email protected]
2. Tata General Insurance Company Ltd. having its registered office at 15th Floor, Tower-A, Penisula Business Park, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg of Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parle, Mumbai.
E-mail: [email protected]
3. Tata General Insurance Company Ltd., 301-308, 3rd Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2, Road No.44, Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi through its Manager.
E-mail: [email protected] ........Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 2 Consumer Complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued by:-
For the complainant : Ms. Niharika Goel, Advocate. For the opposite parties: Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
The complainant, M/s Shri Lakshmi Steel, has filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "C.P. Act") through its Sole Proprietor; namely, Abhay Jain, for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-
a) to make the payment of the vehicle to the tune of ₹30,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.m. from the date of theft till the payment of the same;
b) to pay ₹2,00,000/-, as compensation; and
c) to pay ₹1,00,000/-, as further compensation.
Facts of the Case:
2. Brief facts as averred in the complaint are to the effect that Audi Car, Model A6, colour ice silver Model 2013 was purchased in the name of the said firm and the same was registered with the Registering Authority under Registration Certificate No.PB-10E-J-
0250, Ex.C-1. The vehicle was being insured by the complainant Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 3 with the opposite parties, from time to time. During the relevant period insurance policy bearing No.015631642700 covering the risk of the said vehicle for the period from 21.9.2016 to 20.9.2017 was issued, vide Certificate of Insurance, Ex.C-2. The family of Abhay Jain, which included his father, mother and brother. Anuradha Jain, mother of the complainant had some heart problem. She had gone to seek consultation from Homeopathy Doctor in Faridabad along with her elder son Indresh Jain on 13.9.2017. Both Inderesh Jain and Anuradha Jain, brother and mother of the complainant had gone to Chandni Chowk Market and had parked the vehicle along roadside near Police Station Red Fort at about 3.30 P.M. and when they came back at 5.30 P.M., they found that the vehicle was not there. After making enquiry in the surrounding area the police was informed and FIR No.028642 dated 13.9.2017 was registered under Section 379 IPC with the police of Police Station-Kotwali, North District, New Delhi, Ex.C-3. Simultaneously the opposite parties were also informed about the theft of the vehicle on the Helpline No.18002667780 on the same day and the Executive, who talked, assured that the Company will revert within 24 hours. Thereafter, the brother and mother of the complainant returned to Ludhiana. They continued to contact the police authorities at Chandni Chowk, whether the vehicle was traced or not and they also contacted the agent of the opposite parties; namely, Gurjit Kaur Sial and submitted formal claim with the opposite parties for the reimbursement of the value of the vehicle, vide Ex.C-4. The opposite parties appointed Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 4 Surveyor/Investigator in the name and style of Swan Investigator. All the requisite formalities were completed. Even the documents were given to the said Surveyor/Investigator as per the check list, Ex.C-5. It is further averred that ultimately "untraced report" was given on 4.10.2017 by the police authorities, vide e-mail dated 5.10.2017, Ex.C-6 and the same was accepted by the Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, vide order dated 24.10.2017, Ex.C-7. The complainant received letter dated 3.3.2018, Ex.C-8, from the Surveyor/Investigator, who had sought certain documents, which were already supplied as per check list, Ex.C-5. The complainant started requesting the opposite parties to release the claim amount and sent various e-mails, Ex.C-9 (colly). Thereafter vide letter dated 10.4.2018, Ex.C-10, the opposite parties raised a demand for producing the brother of the complainant, Indresh Jain and his mother, Anuradha Jain, for further details i.e. telephone bill of Indresh Jain and Anuradha Jain and final untraced report was called. After the lapse of period of one year the opposite parties repudiated the claim, vide letter dated 3.10.2018, Ex.C-16. The complainant gave detailed reply to the said letter of repudiation, vide letter dated 20.10.2018, Ex.C-17, as under:-
"1. That the booking of the hotel was done in the name of Mr. Sunil Jain through Go Ibibo.com and the factum of the booking as well as the factum w.r.t. the presence of even 2 members of the family corroborate that the car owners as well as the vehicle was in Delhi. Moreover, the investigation officer should have checked the CCTV Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 5 footage of the hotel well within time to check the statement of the insured.
2. That the insured had duly submitted that he was in Delhi at the time of theft for the regular check-up of Mrs. Anuradha Jain with the doctor in Faridabad. The same has been duly verified by the police authorities and Investigator from staff of Dr. Swaran Prabhakar, who has confirmed the presence of each member for check up at New Delhi but due to doctors un-availability on that particular date she could not check-up the patient Mrs. Anuradha Jain during the period specified in the statement.
3. The FIR was duly lodged at New Delhi, the matter was duly investigated by police authorities at New Delhi and the non-traceable report has also been filed at New Delhi, which means that after investigation by the police authorities it was duly found that the theft actually took place at New Delhi. The Investigation Officer after thorough investigation has reported that the incident took place and they could not trace the same. The mere occurrence of theft entitles the insured to claim the amount of the insurance in cases where due care was adhered to by the insured. In the present case, the insured was not negligent in any manner whatsoever. Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 6
4. It is wrong that till date the insured had not provided any detail with regard to the existence of the vehicle in New Delhi. The details of the credit card/statement was duly provided which shows that the insured got the fuel filled at Ambala and even the FIR was registered at New Delhi and the same was lodged by Indresh Jain and the same was duly also signed by Indresh Jain.
5. That it is wrong that the last user parked the vehicle in the no parking zone. It is a matter of record that the vehicle was parked 100 meters away from the police station and at any given point of time there are 100s of vehicle parked in that area. Moreover, the police has not reported that the vehicle was parked in a no parking zone.
6. That it is wrong that the insured submitted the key after a long gap. It is pertinent to mention here that even the statement of the insured was recorded by the Company after a long period of 7 months. Moreover, the key was duly submitted by the insured and it was the duty of the Investigating Officer of the Company to verify the details and the authenticity of the keys with the Company. The Surveyor or the Investigation Officer have neglected and failed to do so.
7. That the mobile history of all 3 numbers were duly provided by the last user of the vehicle and the local call- Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 7 details number could not be provided as the user had ported their number to Jio and the history could not be obtained from the service provider. However, it is reiterated here that the existence of the mother Mrs. Anuradha Jain has been duly verified from her consultant Doctor and Hotels in Karol Bagh, New Delhi which have 100 of CCTV cameras installed in the area, which could have been verified by the Surveyor or the Investigator during that time which he failed to do so.
8. That there are calls made inter-se various mobile reasons as Shri Indresh Jain was in Delhi and was conducting his work/business, meeting with lawyers due to pendency of cases and also his wife used to work in Yes Bank, New Delhi. So, whenever Indresh Jain was out for work or with his wife, he used to call his mother to ensure her health is "OK" as she is a heart patient and has undergone numerous treatments in the past.
9. It is wrong that the last user has not submitted any document that he was there with his mother in Delhi. This is contrary to the earlier paragraph wherein it was duly submitted by you that the mobile history of the last user has already been provided. So, it was only local call details number for which the history was not provided but the number with the last user shows that he was in Delhi, the signatures on the FIR shows that he was in Delhi and Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 8 the statement of the staff of the Doctor with whom the check-up was to be done also shows that even his mother was in Delhi. It is wrong and vehemently denied that the statements given by the proprietor, last user of the mother are false. The insurance company is making lame excuses by not releasing the claim amount as per the contract of insurance.
10. That the statement of the last user was recorded after a period of around 7 months. So, there could have been an inadvertent error about the timing for which he left for Delhi. The same does not make it a ground to repudiate the claim of the insured."
However, nothing has been done in the matter and aggrieved by the same the complainant filed the present complaint for issuance of above mentioned directions to the opposite parties. Defence of Opposite Parties:
3. Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint reply taking preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. The complainant is a commercial entity and is engaged in the business and, as such, the complainant is not a 'consumer' as defined under the provisions of the C.P. Act. This Commission does not have territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The present dispute involves disputed questions of facts and law and, as such, this Commission has no power to adjudicate the same by way of Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 9 summary procedure provided under the provisions of the C.P. Act.
The complainant has not come with clean hands and has tried to play a fraud by concealing the material facts. On merits, the fact that the Audi Car bearing RC No.PB-10E-J-0250, vide Policy No.015631642700 covering the risk of the vehicle for the period from 21.9.2016 to midnight of 20.9.2017 is admitted. The insured declared value of the vehicle was ₹30,00,000/- and the Certificate of Insurance and Policy, Ex.OP-1, was issued. Information of the loss was given to the opposite parties and they immediately appointed Swan Investigations to investigate the claim. As per the statement of the complainant, both Indresh Jain and Anuradha Jain had gone to Chandni Chowk market and had parked the vehicle along roadside near Police Station Red Fort at about 3.30 P.M. and when they came back at 5.30 P.M. they found that the vehicle was not there for which FIR No.028642 dated 13.9.2017 under Section 379 IPC was registered in Police Station Kotwali, North District, New Delhi. The said Investigators carried out the investigation and gave detailed report dated 30.3.2018. The said Investigators observed that the vehicle had been stolen due to gross negligence of Indresh Jain, who instead of parking the vehicle in authorized parking, had left the vehicle unattended and went to the market. Moreover, the proprietor Abhay Jain had not produced the keys of the said vehicle even after personal visit of the Investigators and the letters dated 6.2.2018, 19.2.2018, 7.3.2018 and 15.3.2018, Ex.OP-4 to Ex.OP-7 requesting him for producing the necessary documents and keys of the vehicle. Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 10 It was also observed that the user must have left the keys in the car due to which the vehicle got stolen and, thus, it was violation of Condition No.4 of the Policy. Even no proof was given to the Investigator that the vehicle was taken to Delhi. In-spite of the repeated requests of the Investigators, the complainant did not call the last user of the vehicle, Shri Indresh Jain. On 29.3.2018 Indresh Jain, brother of the complainant, sent e-mail, Ex.OP-8 to the said Investigators and sought their explanation. The said Investigators replied, vide e-mail dated 31.3.2018, Ex.OP-9. The opposite parties also wrote letters dated 10.4.2018 and 31.5.2018, Ex.OP-10 and Ex.OP11, to the complainant for providing necessary documents but no positive action was taken by the complainant to assist in processing the claim. The insurance claim was repudiated, vide letter dated 3.10.2018, Ex.OP-12, wherein it was specifically mentioned that as the complainant did not supply the relevant documents and the keys of the vehicle, which goes to show that the vehicle was stolen with access to its original keys and, as such, there was violation of Conditions Nos.4 and 8 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Denying all other averments made in the complaint and denying any deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. Evidence of the Parties:
4. In support of the complaint, the complainant annexed with the complaint affidavit of its Sole Proprietor, Abhay Jain and copies of documents i.e. copy of Registration Certificate dated 14.10.2013 as Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 11 Ex.C-1, copy of Insurance Policy dated 21.9.2016 as Ex.C-2, copy of FIR dated 13.9.2017 as Ex.C-3, copy of Claim Letter dated
20.9.2017 as Ex.C-4, copy of Investigator's Check list dated 13.10.2017 as Ex.C-5, copy of Untraced report dated 5.10.2017 as Ex.C-6, copy of Order of Delhi Court dated 24.10.2017 as Ex.C-7, copies of letters dated 3.3.2018, 10.4.2018, 24.4.2018, dated 8.9.2018, undated and another letter dated 27.7.2018 as Ex.C-8, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-14, respectively, copies of e-mails as Ex.C-9, copy of Postal Receipt as Ex.C-13, copy of Reminder Letter dated 7.8.2018 as Ex.C15, copy of Repudiation Letter dated 3.10.2018 as Ex.C-16 and copy of reply to the repudiation letter dated 20.10.2018 as Ex.C-17.
5. On the other hand, opposite parties annexed with their reply affidavit of their Vice President, Sanjay Bhagat as Ex.OP-A and copies of documents i.e. copy of Certificate of Insurance and Policy as Ex.OP1, copy of FIR dated 13.9.2017 as Ex.OP2, copy of Report of the Investigator dated 30.3.2018 as Ex.OP3, copy of letter dated 21.1.2018 sent on 6.2.2018 along with copies of other letters dated 19.2.2018, 7.3.2018 and 15.3.2018 as Ex.OP4 to Ex.OP7, respectively, copies of e-mails dated 29.3.2018 and 31.3.2018, as Ex.OP8 to Ex.OP9, copies of letters dated 10.4.2018 and 31.5.2018 as Ex.OP-10 and Ex.OP-11 and a copy of repudiation letter dated 3.10.2018 as Ex.OP12.
Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 12
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. I have also gone through the written arguments submitted by both the parties. Contentions of the Parties:
7. The sum and substance of the oral as well as written arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the complainant had been getting the vehicle in question insured from the opposite parties and had been paying the due premiums from time to time. The vehicle was taken to Delhi by his brother; namely, Indresh Jain and parked the same in the Red Fort parking from where it was stolen by the thieves during the subsistence of the insurance policy, Ex.C-2/Ex.OP-1. FIR dated 13.9.2017, Ex.C-3 was lodged in the concerned Police Station in New Delhi. After investigation the police submitted the "Untrace Report" dated 5.10.2017 as Ex.C-6, which was duly accepted by the Tis Hazari Court at New Delhi, vide order dated 24.10.2017, Ex.C-7. The claim has been rejected illegally after the lapse of more than one year in- spite of providing all the relevant documents as desired by the Investigators and the opposite parties, from time to time, vide repudiation letter dated 3.10.2018, Ex.C-16 on the flimsy grounds mentioned therein. It was also argued that the complainant is a 'consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act as the vehicle was purchased for the use/personal use of its Sole Proprietor and has made reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in "Crompton Greaves Limited & Anr. v. Daimler Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 13 Chrysler India Private Limited" reported in 2016(4) CPJ 469. It was prayed that the complaint be allowed as prayed for and all the directions be issued to the opposite parties.
8. Per contra, the sum and substance of the oral as well as written arguments of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the opposite parties and the same had been stolen from Delhi during the subsistence of the insurance policy for which FIR, Ex.OP2 was registered in the concerned police station in Delhi. The only contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties was that there is violation of conditions Nos.4 and 8 of the insurance policy, Ex.OP1 as the complainant did not supply all the relevant documents as asked for by them and the original keys of the vehicle. There is every possibility that the key was left in the vehicle, which may have resulted into the theft of the vehicle. This being violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question, therefore, the insurance claim has rightly been repudiated on the grounds mentioned therein, vide repudiation letter dated 3.10.2018, Ex.OP12. Learned counsel for the opposite parties made reference to the following judgments:-
i) "Ravneet Singh Bagga v. M/s K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines" 1994(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 690 (SC);
ii) "National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sri Srinivas Cotton Traders" passed in FA No.818 of 2003 decided on 25.2.2010 by Hon'ble National Commission;
iii) "UII v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal" 2004(8) SCC 644; Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 14
iv) "Iqbal Hussain Quazi v. New India Assurance Company Limited" (2005) CPJ -95 (HC)
v) "Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd." II(2009) CPJ 34 (SC)=IV(2009) SLT35=JT 2009(5) SC 579; and
vi) "General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain and Another" AIR 1966 SC 1644.
Consideration of Contentions:
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the oral as well as written arguments submitted by both the parties.
10. The facts of the case are admitted that the vehicle in question bearing Registration No.PB-10E-J-0250 was insured with the opposite parties and the same had been stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy, Ex.C-2/Ex.OP-1, from Near Angoori Bagh Bus Stand, Lower Subhash Marg Near Metro Gate No.4, Red Fort, Delhi on 13.9.2017 for which FIR No.028642 dated 13.9.2017 was registered in PS-Kotwali, North District, Delhi, Ex.C3/Ex.OP2. The intimation of the theft was also given to the opposite parties immediately and the insurance claim was lodged with them. The opposite parties appointed Swan Investigations to investigate the claim. It is also not in dispute that the police after investigation had given untraced report dated 5.10.2017, Ex.C-6, which was duly accepted by the concerned Court in New Delhi, vide order dated 24.10.2017, Ex.C-7. The only question which arises for consideration is, whether the complainant had committed the breach Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 15 of terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question specifically conditions Nos.4 & 8 thereof?
11. The case set up by the complainant is that on the day of theft the vehicle was taken by his brother Indresh Jain along with their mother Anuradha Jain to Chandni Chowk, New Delhi for shopping. It has also come in evidence that the vehicle was not parked in the specified car parking, which was available nearby but it was parked along the roadside near Police Station Red Fort at 3.30 P.M. on 13.9.2017. Swan Investigations investigated the claim and submitted their investigation report dated 30.3.2018, Ex.OP-3, in which it has been observed in para nos.2 and 3 of their Observations as under:-
"2. Other than that Mr. Abhay Jain (Proprietor of the Insured-
firm) till date hasn't produced the keys of the said vehicle even after our personal visits several telephone calls and several reminder letters i.e. first on 06.02.2018, reminder letter on 19.02.2018, third reminder on 07.03.2018 and final reminder letter on 15.03.2018 (copies of letters along with POD slips and delivery chart are enclosed).
As per that it seems that insured is concealing some facts in relation to the keys of the said vehicle or it might be possible that last user would have left the key of the said vehicle in the ignition itself due to which the said vehicle has got stolen.
Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 16
3. By keeping the above mentioned facts and findings in view it confirms that insured has violated insurance policy term and condition No.4 i.e. "insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the said vehicle from loss or damage".
A perusal of the record reveals that Abhay Jain, complainant, was written a number of letters by the Swan Investigations for producing some documents along with original keys of the vehicle in question. The first such letter is dated 21.1.2018, Ex.OP-4. Thereafter another letter dated 19.2.2018, Ex.OP-5, was written to the complainant requesting him to produce his brother Indresh Jain, who was the last user of the vehicle and their mother, Anuradha Jain, who was present along with last user at the place of theft, for recording their version along with some documents. The complainant was also requested to give the reasons for giving late intimation to the opposite parties by 7 days. Thereafter another letter/reminder dated 7.3.2018, Ex.OP-6, was sent to the complainant seeking same very information. Another letter/reminder dated 15.3.2018, Ex.OP-7, to the same effect was also sent to the complainant. The complainant was required to comply with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy specifically conditions Nos.4 and 8 thereof, which read as under:-
"Condition No.4:
The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss or damage and to Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 17 maintain in efficient condition and the company shall have at all time free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damages or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are affected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's own risk.
......
Condition No.8:
The due observance and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsements of the policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be the conditions precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this Policy."
However, the complainant neither produced his brother Indresh Jain and mother Anuradha Jain before the said Investigators nor provided them the documents as asked for by them and the original keys of the vehicle in question. Thus, due to non-production of the original keys a presumption has been raised by the opposite parties that at least one of the keys must have been left in the vehicle by the last Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 18 user, which may have facilitated the thieves to steal the vehicle and such an act of the last user violated condition No.4 of the Insurance Policy, Ex.OP-1. Further various documents sought by the opposite parties have also not been provided to them in-spite of a number of calls made to the complainant and letters/reminders written to him. As such, the complainant also violated condition No.8 of the insurance policy.
12. Admittedly neither the driver/last user of the vehicle at the relevant time got recorded anything in the FIR about the keys of the vehicle nor the driver/last user or the complainant produced the original keys to the Investigators of the opposite parties in-spite of making a number of calls and sending written letters/reminders. Even the complainant has not produced his brother, Indresh Jain, who was the driver/last user of the vehicle and his mother, Anuradha Jain, who was accompanying the said driver/last user at the relevant time before the Investigators for recording their statements in order to verify the facts and circumstances under which the vehicle had been stolen. It means that the complainant has not approached the opposite parties with clean hands nor any explanation has been furnished by him in the pleadings of the present complaint. If the vehicle in question was used by the driver/last user at that particular point of time, then the keys of the same must have been used for igniting and driving the vehicle. If the vehicle would have been properly parked, then the keys of the same must have been taken out by the driver/last user with him and must have been provided to Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 19 the Investigators of the opposite parties or to the opposite parties along with the claim file. Therefore, the possibility of leaving of the keys inside the vehicle cannot be ruled out. So has been observed by the Investigators appointed by the opposite parties also in their report dated 30.3.2018. Had the driver/last user of the vehicle removed that key before leaving the vehicle, the theft could have been prevented. The leaving of the ignition key in the vehicle may have facilitated the commission of the theft. Moreover, it is his own case that the driver/last user had parked the vehicle along the roadside near Angoori Bagh Bust Stand, Lower Subhash Marg, Near Metro Gate No.4, Red Fort, Delhi, which is evident from the contents of the FIR, Ex.OP-2 also and that was not a place of parking the same. From all these facts, it stands proved that the driver/last user of the vehicle failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and, as such, violated Conditions Nos.4 and 8 of the Insurance Policy.
13. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harchand Rai Chandan Lal's case (supra) that the terms of contract have to be strictly read and natural meaning be given to the same and that the terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties and cannot be overlooked. The other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties also fully apply to the facts of the present case.
14. As there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, no claim is payable to the complainant. Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2018 20 The opposite parties were, thus, justified in repudiating the claim, vide repudiation letter dated 3.10.2018, Ex.C-16/Ex.OP-12, on the grounds mentioned therein.
15. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
16. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT July 06, 2020 Bansal