State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jagveer Singh vs Bharti Axa Gi.In.Coltd on 7 July, 2025
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
APPEAL NO. 2051/2019
Jagveer Singh
S/o Ramvaran Singh
Age 31 years
Occupation - Farmer
R/o Village Chandu Ka Pura
Post Dathhera
District Morena ... Appellant
VERSUS.
Bharati AXA General Insurance
Company Ltd. through Manager
Bharti AXA General Insurance
Company Ltd.
222-B Block
Vishnu Vaibhav Complex
Palam Road,
Civil Line
Nagpur. ... Respondent
BEFORE;
HON'BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.
SHRI RAVINDRA TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.
ORDER
( 07.07.2025 ) Per say - Justice Sunita Yadav, President.
: 2 :This appeal by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') is directed against the order dated 25.9.2019, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short 'District Commission'), in complaint case No. 418/2013, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the him.
2. Briefly put, the facts of the case, as narrated by the complainant, are that the complainant is owner of a vehicle bearing registration No. MP-06 CA-0925, which was insured with the respondent/opposite party Bharti AXA General Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as 'Insurance Company'), for the period from 10.4.2013 to 9.4.2014. The complainant has purchased the said vehicle with the financial help from Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. On 11.4.2013, some unknown, thief stolen the vehicle from Murar Gwalior, where complainant came with his uncle. Information regarding the incident was given to Police Station, Murar on 11.4.2013, which has been entered in the rojnamcha and the appellant was asked to search the vehicle. The report was lodged on 13.7.2013 in Police Station, Murar as Crime No.194/13. Information regarding the theft was given to the Insurance Company on the toll free number and Shri Anand Rathore was appointed as Investigator by the Insurance Company. Shri Rathore investigated the matter and statements were recorded and investigation report with claim form and required documents has been sent to the Insurance Company. Since the claim filed by the complainant was neither : 3 : decided nor paid the sum assured, the complainant approached the District Commission, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, by filing the aforesaid complaint, seeking relief.
3. The Insurance Company resisted the complaint and in their reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant has fraudulently obtained the insurance policy in question, without physical verification of the vehicle. It has been further stated that the statement of the complainant that the vehicle was stolen on 11.4.2013 from Gwalior is not correct. On 11.4.2013 report has been lodged in the rojnamcha and report of theft has been registered on 13.4.2013 is also incorrect. According to Insurance Company, the complainant has obtained the insurance policy in question fraudulently and filed a false claim for a vehicle stolen prior to issuance of the policy in question. The policy was effective from 10.4.2013 to 9.4.2014 and the vehicle was reported to be stolen in the night of 10.4.2013 itself. While obtaining the policy in question the complainant informed the Insurance Company that the vehicle in question was insured with Future Generally India Insurance Company from 10.4.2012 to 9.4.2013, an on utmost faith, without verifying the fact, the policy in question has been issued. Later, on verification, the said policy was found fake. Despite demand, the original papers of the vehicle and keys were not given to the Insurance Company. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on 22.10.2013, intimation regarding which has been given to the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
: 4 :4. The District Commission after appreciating the evidence filed by the parties, dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the impugned order is perverse and against the settled principle of law. The District Commission has failed to consider the documents and evidence filed by it, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the relief claimed by the complainant be granted in his favour.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the impugned order is in accordance with the evidence and settled principle of law. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard and perused the record.
8. It is not in dispute that the incident of theft of vehicle in question occurred on 11.4.2013 and the FIR (Annexure C-3), filed by the complainant himself, indicates that the report was lodged with delay of two days, on 13.4.2013. No rojnamcha entry is filed to prove that information was given on the same day. Intimation to the Insurance Company about the theft was also given with delay, on 26.4.2013. Therefore, the learned District Commission has not erred in holding that on account of breach of policy condition, the claim of complainant was rightly repudiated by the Insurance Company.
9. The record further indicate that as per proposal form Annexure R-7, the complainant had already obtained another insurance policy in respect to the same vehicle, however, as per document, copy of policy Annexure R-3, the vehicle in question was insured in favour of complainant from 10.4.2012 : 5 : to 9.4.2013 and another copy of the same policy number is in the name of some Mohan Singh Raghuwanshi, in respect to vehicle Tata Indigo CS LX TDI. The Investigators report filed by the Insurance Company Exhibit R-1, is corroborated by these documents and complainant has failed to contradict the aforesaid documents. Therefore, the learned District Commission has also rightly held that the present policy has been obtained by playing fraud and concealing material facts.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the considered opinion of this Commission, the Insurance Company has not erred in rejecting the claim of the complainant.
11. Consequently, the appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV) (DR. SRIKANT PANDEY)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Mercy