Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).

                                                                        Complaint No. : 09/2018.

                                                                        Instituted on     : 01.06.2018.

                                                                        Decided on       : 11.10.2019.

Kasir Mohammad son of Sh. Hasan Mohd., R/o Jakhokhar, Punhana Tehsil Punhana District Nuh.

                                                                                                            ………..Complainant.

                                                            Vs.

1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Ground Floor Palm Court, Near MDI Chowk, Gurgaon through Divisional Manager.
2. Ilahi Manjoor Insurance Point, Badakali Chowk, Bad Ka Ped, Jama Masjid, Badkali chowk through its proprietor Ilahi Manjoor.

                                                                                                            ……….Opposite parties.

            COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:      SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.

                        MS. URMIL BENIWAL, MEMBER.

Present:         Sh. Sajid Salamba, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate for the respondent.

                                                ORDER

RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:

1.                                 Brief facts of the complaint that the complainant is a registered owner of the stolen vehicle no. HR28F/6533 Model- April 2016  and it was insured with the respondent which was within period and that the complainant brought his above noted tractor at Bilwali which is situated just ahead Thanagaji Rajasthan about 20/25 day ago for made pound (Bandh Ki Pol Bandhna) and for digging the same and after finishing his work, on dated 5.3.2017 the complainant was coming back to his village Jakhokhar, District Nuh. At about 7.00 p.m. the complainant parked his tractor near Patrol Pump at Manu Marg and went to market for purchasing homely articles. And after expiry of 1 and ½ hours when the complainant came back to the place where the vehicle was parked then he did not saw his tractor. The complainant searched the vehicle nearby the locality and enquired about the same but could not know about the whereabouts of the vehicle. The vehicle was stolen by some unknown thief. The complainant made his best efforts to find out his vehicle but could not succeed after all this, complainant gave intimation in this regard to Police Control Room Alwar. The complainant also moved an application to PS Kotwali on same day but no action was taken and after the applicant gave application to SP Alwar on 7.3.2017 through registered post but no action was taken and after that the complainant filed an complaint before the CJM Alwar and the Hon’ble Court sent the same in under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. on which FIR No. 310 dated 6.4.2017 under Section 379 IPC was lodged in PS Kotwali Alwar against unknown thief and that complainant also informed to the insurance company in this regard on same day. The complainant lodged claim vide claim No. 3217002032 to the insurance company regarding theft of vehicle. The complainant also fulfilled all the requirement and also supplied relevant document qua the vehicle in question for getting the OD claim on account of theft of his vehicle on which the officials of the insurance company gave only oral assurance to release the OD claim in favour of the complainant shortly. That investigator of the respondent company also visited with the spot. After this applicant was rest assured by the Investigator of the insurance company to get his OD claim released at the earliest and that thereafter, the complainant many times requested to the respondent to release the OD claim to the complainant on account of the theft of the vehicle but the respondent kept on evading the matter on the false pretext and now the respondent has a week ago orally refused to release the OD claim to the complainant without assigning any reason for which they have no right to do so. That the fact of steal of vehicle in question is well within the notice and knowledge of the respondent but the respondent deliberately and knowing had not release the OD claim to the applicant on account of theft of vehicle in question. That except the present claim application, no other claim application has been filed by the applicant in any court of law so far. That vehicle got insured through respondent No. 2 and cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court hence this Hon’ble Court has got jurisdiction to decide the present application. Hence, this complaint with prayer to direct the respondents to pay Rs. 5,32,000/- alongwith cost and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of steal of vehicle till realization of amount to the complainant and any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper also be granted to the complainant.

2.                                 After registration of complaint, notices were issued to respondents. Respondents in their reply has submitted that at the very threshold of the allegations contained in the complaint, the intimation of occurrence of incident was firstly received by the insurance company on 13/06/2017 after delay of 100 days & FIR was lodged on 06/04/2017 after inordinate delay of 32 days, wherein, alleging theft of vehicle bearing No. HR28S/6533 was stolen on 05/03/2017, which amply prove on record that the complainant was failed to intimate the insurance company as well as police authority immediately on the alleged occurrence of theft, resulted violation of condition No. 1 of the insurance policy. As such, the issue under the present complaint does not fall under the peri-pheri of the provisions and more particularly the word “deficiency” as defined under Section 2(g) and word “service” as defined Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As the facts of the complaint, the answering respondents came to know that the complainant being registered owner has lodged the FIR with the police station Kotwali Alwar on 06/04/2017 and alleged in the FIR that the theft in question has been taken place on 05/03/2017, and the complainant gave intimation to Insurance Company for alleged theft on 13/06/2017. The complainant has given the intimation to the Insurance Company after a gap of 100 days from the alleged date of theft. The said FIR was also lodged after 32 days, which is completely doubtful in regard the happening of theft date and place. Hence, the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable under the provision of the policy and terms and conditions, and as well as under the Consumer Protection Act. It is stated that Vehicle No. HR28S/6533 is insured in the name of Mr. Kasir Mohd vide insurance Policy No. 262262343000378 valid for the period of 23/04/2016 to 22/04/2017 against insured declared value of Rs.5,32,000/- subject to I.M.T. Endt. for premium of Rs.9620/-. Accordingly, the insurance company relies upon the terms & conditions incorporated in the insurance policy and issued accordingly favouring the complainant. It is submitted that the insurance company have never undertaken to indemnity and/or to provide insurance service to the insured, in case, violation of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy by the insured. It is also denied that any theft of Vehicle No. HR28S/6533 took place on 05/03/2017 at about 07:00 P.M. near Patrol Pump Manu Marg, Alwar. When he came there he found the Vehicle in question missing and the same has been stolen by some unknown persons. On the contrary, it is submitted that the complainant has been procured the FIR No. 310 dated 06/04/2017 under Section 379 IPC in P.S. Kotwali, Alwar in connivance with the police and interested persons as well in order to present false and unsustainable claim and to fleece the compensation from the insurance company being a Private Sector Undertaking. Further, it is submitted that as a matter of record of the insurance company, the company had received intimation on behalf of the complainant on 13/06/2017 being first time after a gap of an inordinate delay of 100 days & FIR was lodged on 06/04/2017 i.e. after a gap of 32 days, wherein, alleging theft of vehicle No. HR28S/6533 on 05/03/2017. Since, such intimation constituted violation of terms & conditions of the insurance policy, hence, the insurance company have arrived at the decision in treating such claim as “Repudiated” vide letter of intimation dated 29/06/2017, which decision cannot be termed unconscionable at all. Thus, taking into consideration of the above facts, the insurance company has been deprived in seeking investigation by deputing any surveyor or investigator to assess the alleged loss as well as ascertaining the veracity and genuineness of the alleged claim. It is pertinent to mention here that since the complainant himself has failed to intimate the insurance company immediately on the occurrence of the alleged theft on 05/03/2017, thus, violating and infringing the terms & conditions of the insurance policy knowingly, purposely and willingly, hence, there was no occasion for the insurance company to put such intimation into process, having been received by the insurance company firstly on 13/06/2017 except treating the subject claim as “No claim”.  In the end he prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed.

3.                                 Learned counsel for the complainant closed the evidence after tendering the affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Annexure-1 to Annexure-7.

4.                                 Learned counsel for the resondent closed the evidence after tendering the affidavit Ex. RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 & R-2.

5.                                 Arguments heard and file perused.

6.                                

7.                                 Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 11.10.2019