Haryana

StateCommission

A/101/2019

RAM LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPASHIKHA CHAUHAN

25 Mar 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  First Appeal No.101   of 2019

 Date of Institution:14.01.2019

  Date  of  Decision:25.03.2022

 

Ram Lal son of Shri Tek Chand, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Chinda, Sub Tehsil Khanpur Kalan, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat.

 

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Reliance General Insurance Company, office situated at G.T. Road, Panipat, through its Branch Manager.

 

…..Respondent

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

                   

Present:-    Mr.Kunal Garg, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Satpal Dhamija, counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S.P. SOOD,  JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

       

                    Feeling aggrieved, appellant (Shri Ram Lal), who was complainant before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (in short “DCDRC”) has come up with the present appeal.

2.                Facts put forth in brief goes like that the complainant being the owner of Scorpio Car bearing registration No.HR-29Z-8573 got the same insured with the present respondent (Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.), opposite party No.1 before the learned DCDRC, having its office situated at G.T. Road, Panipat, for its IDV of Rs.5,70,000/- (Rs. Five lacs seventy thousand only), vide insurance policy No.2005552311005914. Further, complainant has alleged that on 25.12.2015, he had gone to Agra from Panipat and while he was coming back from Agra and reached near Mathura, he offered lift in his vehicle to two strangers. Thereafter, when all of them reached near Farraha Police Station close to Toll Tax Barrier, one of the abovesaid strangers purchased some frootis (a drink) and offered one of the said packing of drink to the complainant and as goodwill gesture; complainant also consumed the same without knowing anything that the drink was laced with stupefying material. This is how after some time of his consuming the said drink, complainant became unconscious then, both of the said strangers threw him out and fled away with his vehicle alongwith all of its documents etc. To his good luck, complainant was shifted to Police Station, Farraha by some passersby, where the police officials informed about this occurrence to his family members, following which some of his close associates namely Naresh and Krishan came over there and started taking care of him. At that occasion, complainant as well as both of above named associates tried to lodge the FIR, but as the complainant was not in proper frame of mind, as such, no FIR could come into existence. Thereafter, his associates shifted him to Malik Hospital, Rohtak, where he remained under treatment. Continuing further, complainant has also averred that afterwards it was with due indulgence of Village Panchayat with S.P. Mathura, that ultimately the FIR No.31 got registered on 16.01.2016 with the Police Station, Farraha, District Mathura. Thereafter, the matter was also brought to the notice of opposite party-insurance company, who in turn appointed some investigator to carry out the necessary enquiry into the alleged occurrence. Further, the complainant had also alleged that initially the functionary of the opposite party were keen to offer him a sum of Rs.4,17,000/- (Rs. Four lacs seventeen thousand only), but, thereafter they altogether refused to pay him anything towards his claim. These developments rendered them deficient in their services towards the complainant and he sought recovery of a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- alongwith compensation from the opposite party-insurance company being deficient in services.

3.                On the other hand, opposite party (insurance company) have contested the complaint on maintainability, locus-standie and also the same being vague on account of its lacking material particulars. Likewise, complainant was also blamed for not having approached the DCDRC with clean hands and also on account of having suppressed material facts. Thereafter, admitting the factum of complaint that the complainant purchased the schedule package policy for his Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. HR-29Z-8573  and the claim of the complainant was repudiated by them on the ground of breach of material facts as well as violation of terms and conditions of the said policy. Elaborating this further, insurance company has also averred that after receiving intimation regarding this occurrence on 25.01.2016, they immediately swung into action and registered his claim bearing No.3216000405.  Further, they immediately deputed Mr. Manu Trehan, to investigate the loss/theft of the insured vehicle. The above named investigator demanded some documents from the complainant like, claim form, his driving license, copy of registration certificate of the insured vehicle, copy of FIR, copy of insurance policy, untraced report from the Court and copy of the written intimation given to Registration Authority about the said occurrence, but somehow or the other, complainant has not submitted the untraced report before the said investigator. Not only this, but the said investigator has also recorded statement of the complainant and after completion of his investigation, submitted his report with the remarks that “there was a delay of 21 days in registration of the FIR and similarly a delay of 31 days was entailed by the complainant in lodging the intimation about this loss to the opposite party (insurance company). Further, it was also disclosed that as per the story put forth by the complainant, later had given lift to two unknown persons, who served him intoxicated drink, following which he became unconscious and this is how those strangers threw him out and fled away with his vehicle. Therefore, it was the complainant, who himself was grossly negligent at the first place while permitting the strangers to occupy his vehicle and further he again committed blunder when he consumed the cold drink so offered by those unknown persons that too in alien area. So, these things clearly depicted that the complainant has been negligent in taking the minimum reasonable safe guard of his vehicle, so as to prevent it from any such loss. This is what precisely has been provided in the Condition No.4 of the policy in question. Opposite party (insurance company) has also alleged that not only Condition No.4 was violated by the complainant, rather as per Condition no.1 of the same policy, the complainant has failed to inform about this loss or theft of his vehicle to the insurance company immediately. Since, the alleged occurrence took place on 25.12.2015, the said opposite party (insurance company) was informed after 31 days i.e. 25.01.2016 itself. So, it was only on account of the breach of these two conditions of the insurance policy that the claim put forth by the complainant was repudiated. Besides this, further averments of the complaint was also denied and prayed for the dismissal of the same.

4.                After completion of the pleadings, both the parties submitted their respective evidence including various documents and even both the parties reiterated their respective stands through their sworn affidavits. It was only after evaluating all these documents that the learned DCDRC, Panipat came to the conclusion that since the complainant himself was found to have committed breach of Condition no.4 of the insurance policy that is why opposite party (insurance company) was not at all deficient in its services towards the complainant and being so, complainant has no case in his favour and as such, complaint was dismissed by the DCDRC, Panipat vide impugned order dated 03.12.2018.

5.                During the course of arguments, before this Commission, learned counsel for the appellant (original complainant) has argued that the complainant was thrown out of his vehicle on 25.12.2015 by the strangers after administrating some obnoxious/stupefying material that is why he has to be hospitalized also and virtually for these reasons there was some delay on his part for getting the FIR registered with the concerned Police Station and also for informing this to the insurance company. This is how the complainant was fully justified for delay in informing the insurance company about this incident and submitting his claim. In support of his abovesaid arguments, learned counsel for the appellant also sought reliance upon what was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while deciding the Civil Appeal No.15611 of 2017 titled as “Om Parkash Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.”

6.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent (opposite party/insurance company) forcefully argued that although, learned counsel for the appellant is trying to cover up the delay on account of the medical issue confronting the complainant after being administered with the intoxicated laced drink, but surprisingly enough, no such medical record has been made available before the learned DCDRC in this regard. Further, learned counsel for the respondent also emphasized that even if the FIR regarding theft of vehicle came into existence on 16.01.2016 and still it is very surprising that why  associates of complainant have also not brought this incident into the notice of insurance company. What prevented them to wait for another 10-11 days to bring this fact into their knowledge that has also not been explained by the complainant.  Of course, learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that as to what could have been the compelling reasons for the complainant to offer lift to some strangers that also needs to be probed. Meaning thereby, no plausible explanation is forth coming as to why complainant allowed some strangers to occupy his vehicle especially  while he was coming back to his place during the night hours because the alleged occurrence  took place on 25.12.2015 somewhere around 7:30 P.M., when the dark happens about 5 P.M. in the evening itself. So, when the complainant is not able to satisfy all these queries  that is why learned DCDRC was  fully justified while concluding that since there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy and the said breach has not at all being explained by the complainant, so there being no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party (insurance company), as such the complaint was dismissed.

7.                Adverting upon to the discus, this appeal on merits, it is admitted fact both the parties that the complainant after having purchased this second hand vehicle  got the same insured from the opposite party (insurance company and at that occasion its IDV was fixed to be Rs.5,70,000/- (Rs. Five lacs seventy thousand only). Both the parties are not at variance with each other that as disclosed by the complainant while he was travelling back to his native place he was deprived of the said vehicle by two strangers, who had managed to serve with him some intoxicant leaden drink mischievously following which he had fallen unconscious. This accident has not been specifically denied by the insurance company, since the investigator appointed by them has reported in his report in this regard. It is also a fact duly admitted by both the parties that the insurance policy which has been relied upon by them was duly supplied to the complainant and thereafter it was incumbent upon the complainant to have gone through various conditions which were supposed to govern the claim process in case same will be lodged at any time on account of any loss or damage if the same happens to the said vehicle. Even, otherwise, going a step ahead, it is not disputed that the complainant has got FIR registered on 16.01.2016, despite the fact that this occurrence has taken place on 25.12.2015 and thereafter notice of the same was given to the opposite party (insurance company) on 25.01.2016. This is how there has been a delay of 22 days on the part of complainant for getting the FIR registered and likewise the delay of 31 days for informing the insurance company, despite the fact that he was supposed to furnish written intimation to the insurance company immediately, in case of any such loss or damage to the insured vehicle. Added thereto, as per Condition No.4, the complainant was under a pious duty to take a good care of the vehicle and he should take all reasonable care and cautions to keep it in safe and sound condition.  However, if we go by the facts as admitted by the complainant himself, evidently he is found to have breached of above said conditions. This is precisely for the reasons that the only explanation furnished by the complainant that he was not in a proper state of health after the alleged occurrence that he entailed some delay in getting the FIR registered about the occurrence and also to lodge a written complaint before the insurance company is completely unbelievable. But, his abovesaid arguments do not found any support from the documents on record as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for respondent. Moreover, if he take his statement on its face value itself which he got recorded with the investigator and also in the written complaint submitted before the Police Department, we will find that two of his associates namely Naresh and Krishan had reached the Police Station, Farraha  itself after the alleged occurrence after being informed by the police officials. If, for any reason, complainant was not well to lodge the FIR, why his relatives did not set the law into motion as per their own initiative. Moreover, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that following this incident, the complainant remained hospitalized for several days that has also not been substantiate with some documentary proof. If, the complainant had actually been hospitalized, it would not have been difficult for him to place on record hospital prescriptions on the file or discharge summary at least. Finally, the cat also seems to have come out of the bag when it was none other but the complainant himself has got recorded at the fag end of his statement itself that he did not inform the insurance company as he did not know about this at all. So, when this was the state of affairs, then how we could think about the complainant have duly explained the delay entailed in informing the insurance company about this loss. We are talking about this, especially when  in view of the observations recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while deciding the Civil Appeal No.15611 of 2017, relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant, where the Hon’ble Lordship had duly permitted the complainant to get the claim amount after having lost his insured vehicle despite his having lodged the claim  after a delay of 08 days because during which the said claimant was found to have accompanied local police to various parts of the state of Rajasthan to locate the  stolen vehicle. With due respect to what was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, no such explanation is forthwith coming in the case in hand, where the complainant has not even tried to explain the delay entailed by him in lodging the claim before the insurance company. So for these reasons, the abovesaid observations will not fortify the case of the appellant in any manner, what so ever.  So, in the  net analyses when we don’t  find anything for which the impugned judgment could stated to be unjustified or unreasonable in arriving at a conclusion that the opposite party was ever deficient in its services towards the complainant, who could well be treated to be its consumer. As a result of abovesaid discussion, this appeal being devoid of any merit fails and the same stands dismissed. Let the summoned file be sent back and this appeal file be consigned separately after due compliance.

 

 

Pronounced in open court.

 

                                                S.C Kaushik                                       S.P. Sood

March 25^th, 2022                    Member                                              Judicial Member

                                      Addl. Bench                                       Addl. Bench

                                                                       

R.K