Ms. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER        

25.10.2024

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In brief the facts of the  complaint are that complainant is the owner of the vehicle TATA Indigo bearing registration no. DL 9CZ3291 duly insured with OP vide policy bearing no. VPN0083327000100 w.e.f. 28.04.2018 to 27.04.2019.
2. It is alleged by the complainant that on 25.08.2018 the vehicle in question got stolen from sector-6 Rohini, Delhi. Vide FIR no. 030052/2018 FIR with P.S North Police Station was filed. It is further alleged that when the vehicle was not traceable and untraced report was received in respect to the same, the complainant approached OP Ins. Co. with requisite documents for getting the theft claim. It is further stated that on various occasions complainant approached OP Ins. Co. but the officials of the OP neither rejected the claim nor had allowed the same. On 27.11.2020, complainant served legal notice upon OP thereby calling it to reimburse the theft in question. OP neither replied to the legal notice nor had complied the same, being aggrieved by the conduct of the OP, complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.
3. Notice of the complaint was sent to OP. OP contested the complaint and filed its written statement thereby denying any deficiency in service on its part. It is further stated that the insured vehicle was hypothecated with Kotak Mahindra Bank. It is further stated that complainant used the vehicle in question for hired and reward purpose which is violation of limitation as to use. It is further stated that while making the declaration in respect to the previous coverage the complainant has stated that the previous policy expired on 01.01.2018 whereas the previous policy was expired on 27.04.2016 and after two years break complainant has insured the vehicle with OP Ins. Co. It is further stated that as per the investigation report complainant has submitted only two ignition keys out of which he lost one key on 10.05.2018 and to that effect he has registered NCR. However, as per the investigator in the year 2012 TA
   TA Indigo Car comes with three ignition keys which are used as door lock also. It is further stated that  the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 25.08.2018  and the intimation of the same was given to OP Ins. Co. on 02.09.2018 after the delay of 8 days which violate condition no. 1 of the policy terms and conditions as such OP has thoughtfully repudiated the claim in question vide letter dated 06.01.2021. Along with the written statement OP has placed on record copy of policy terms and conditions, copy of investigation report of Jain & Associate in support of his contention.
4.  It is further stated that in terms of the aforesaid facts the present complaint be dismissed with cost being frivolous one.
5. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP filed wherein the averments made in the written statement are denied. It is further stated at para-2 (2) of Rejoinder that at the time of purchasing the vehicle  the complainant received two keys, one key had been taken by the financer but complainant only received two keys out of which one key has been lost on 10.05.2018 and the NCR had already been registered. It is further stated that complainant received NCR/ copy of FIR after the delay and as such the delay was caused in intimation to the OP Ins. Co.
6. Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint.
7. Tanvir Ahmad Sr. Executive of OP Ins. Co. filed evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP Ins. Co.
8. Written arguments filed by parties. We have heard arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Amit Madan and Sh. Garud M.V counsel for OP and have perused the record.
9. The sole question for our consideration in the present complaint case is whether the repudiation by OP Ins. Co. is justified or not.
10. It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the holder of the Ins. policy in question. The vehicle in question got stolen on 25.08.2018 duly insured with OP Ins. Co. at the time of theft.  The OP Ins. Co. repudiated the theft claim in question on two grounds, firstly, delay in intimation and secondly on the misrepresentation of the fact in respect to the keys of the vehicle in question.
11. Admittedly, the vehicle in question got stolen on 25.08.2018 and Complainant inform the OP Ins. Co. on 02.09.2018 with the delay of 8 days. However, as per the record he informed the police  through 100 no. call vide DD entry dated 25.08.2018. The untraced report was received on 08.08.2019 in respect to the vehicle in question. Since, the complainant in the present complaint case immediately informed the police in respect to the theft incident, hence, the delay of 08 days in intimating the ins. co. does not come in the way of allowing the present claim in terms of the recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court title as “Jaina Construction Co. Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. ltd. & Ors”.
12. In respect to the second ground of rejection i.e. misrepresentation of the fact in respect to the keys of the vehicle in question. We have perused the record, as per the investigator report the vehicle in question was issued to the complainant with three keys.  The complainant himself admitted before the investigator that he received four keys in respect to the vehicle in question, however, denied the same in its rejoinder and further submit in para-2 (2) of Rejoinder that at the time of purchasing the vehicle  the complainant received two keys, one key had been taken by the financer but complainant only received two keys out of which one key has been lost on 10.05.2018 and the NCR had already been registered in respect to the same.
13. The complainant willfully and intentionally does not disclosed the fact of hypothecation of the vehicle in question by Kotak Mahindra Bank with OP Ins. Co. as well as this Commission. Despite opportunity complainant failed to update the status of the auto loan account and as such failed to establish by way of documentary evidence that the third key of the vehicle is lying with financer i.e. Kotak Mahindra Bank.
14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and concealed the facts in respect to the hypothecation of the vehicle in question as well  as the keys of the vehicle.  Admittedly, the complainant has misrepresent the facts in respect to the keys of the vehicle in question with the OP, we therefore hold repudiation justified and legal  and found no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.
15. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced  in open Forum on 25.10.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                                                NIPUR CHANDNA    

       PRESIDENT                                                                  MEMBER