Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).
Complaint No. : 05/2017.
Instituted on : 07.04.2017.
Decided on : 18.10.2019.
Gafoor Khan S/o Rahman, R/o Village Rewasan, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Shree Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office SCO-26, Near HDFC Bank, Sector 14, Gurgaon, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 14 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
MS. URMIL BENIWAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Nasir Hussain, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ajay Panchal, Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the complaint that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing No. HR-55H-8987 Engine No. 697TC56KR2141290 Chasis No. 373145KRZ133632 and registered with authority of Mewat and that the above said vehicle insured with opposite party vide policy No.10003/31/13/497433 valid from 23/12/2012 upto 22/12/2013 and the insured declaration value of the vehicle is Rs.9,00,000/- as mentioned in policy and that unfortunately on night of dated 08/12/2013 at about 9/10 p.m. complainant was going to crasher zone for loading rodi crusher when he reach nearby Rehpua pull in the main while his dumper/vehicle’s pressure jack suddenly fault and he parked his vehicle near the mechanic shop at safe side and he handed over the pressure jack to mechanic for its repair and went to the house of Attulah for help after some time when complainant reached at the place (mechanic shop) where the insured vehicle was parked but the insured vehicle did not find there and he tried to search the vehicle but the vehicle did not find despite afforded and he enquired about the stolen vehicle from mechanic etc. but all in vain meaning thereby the insured vehicle to put the police has been stolen by unknown person on the very next day i.e. 09/12/2013 complainant reported the matter to police choki, Pingawa about the theft of the vehicle and also made the complaint to S.S.P. Mewat on dated 11/12/2013. But police lodge the complaint ultimately complainant filed the complaint under Section 379 of IPC with request registration of the case under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. before the judicial Magistrate Firozpur Zhirka upon this police registered the case vide FIR No.28 dated 28/01/2013 under Section 379 of IPC, P.S. Punhana and that complainant informed the opposite party about the theft of the vehicle by unknown person on dated 09/12/2013 thereafter he also sent a registered letter dated 17-18/02/2014 regarding the theft of the insured vehicle to opposite party but the opposite party has not release the insurance amount despite several requested and linger on the matter by one pretext and other. Hence, this complaint with prayer to direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs. 9,00,000/- alongwith cost and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of incident till its realization of amount to the complainant and any other relief which this Hon’ble Court 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 the real fact of the case are that under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was imperatively duty bound to give notice in writing to the insurance company immediately upon the occurrence of any loss leading to any claim. But, in the present case the alleged theft has occurred on 09-12-2012 as alleged by the complainant and the applicant intimated given to the police authorities on 28.01.2014 delay 50 days and the intimation given to the respondent/OP-1 after delay of more than 111 days. Whereas, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the intimation be given to the insurance company in written immediately after any occurrence or incident. But admittedly there is delay on the part of the complainant in intimating to the answering respondent well as the local police hence, the answering respondent is not liable to indemnify the alleged claim of the complainant. It is also held that even delay of few days is not intimating the insurance company about the incident of theft is fatal and the insured loses its right to be indemnified when he himself is not vigilant about his rights and his obligations in regard to the compliance of the terms and conditions of the policy and that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering respondent as the complainant has not supplied the required documents to the company as per the insurance policy regarding the alleged occurrence till today after receipt of many letters and reminders. On the one hand the complainant states before the investigator that at about 3.00 PM on dated 8.12.2013, he was going his village beded crusher zone with dumper bearing No. HR-55H-8987. He reached near village Rehpuwa at about 8.00 PM and same time he had parked his dumper at workshop of Jahid for repairing his pressure jack to mechanic for its repair. At the same time Mr. Tayyub also follow him with his vehicle number HR-38Q-1432. Mr. Tayyub also parked his vehicle on the front of Jahid workshop and after parked of his dumper both of them went to relative home Attulah home and after taking meal both of them slept there. Next morning he was reached at about 5.00 A.M. on workshop of Jahid where the insured vehicle was parked but the insured vehicle did not find. During the investigation it came out some contradiction statement and insured/applicant was try to misguide and misrepresentation of facts. Firsts point came-out that Jahid workshop was not existing at that place where the insured vehicle was parked at the village Rehpuwa. The investigator try to search near location. Nobody told about the workshop of Jahid. Applicant was also not disclosing the name of Jahid before the police at time lodging the complainant. The investigator also taken the photo of the place of occurrence. In the photo it has been clear that no shop was exist near surrounding area. So, the insured vehicle was not stolen and intentionally lodged false FIR. Second point came out that no relative of insured residing in the village at Rehpuwa. Third point that as per FIR that at about 9-10 PM complainant was going to crasher zone for lqading road crusher and other side he gave statement before the investigator that at about 3.00 p.m. complainant was going to crasher zone for lqading rodi crusher and at about 8.00 p.m. reached village at Rehpuwa. The complainant statement before the investigator and police was different version. These all facts and circumstances prove that false FIR was lodged for talking the false claim. The complainant was not call on emergency helpline number 100 about this incident and that the vehicle was subject to hypothecation agreement with Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd and to secure financial interest of said financer, endorsement IMT-7, 23,40,28,39,21 was made in the policy and the complaint was bad for non joinder of the necessary parties. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed at the first instance with heavy costs and that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court as this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present complaint as the insurance policy for the vehicle bearing Reg. No. HR-55H-8987 was issued from the office at E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur (Raj) 302022. Hence, this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present complaint and the same deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is further submitted that earlier the complainant filed a complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat, (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon Camp Forum at Nuh and the said complaint was dismissed as withdrawn by the complainant before Hon’ble Court on 23.12.2016. That the present complainant is not maintainable as it has been filed beyond the period of limitation i.e. two years from the date of cause of action which has arose in the year 2013. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution on this ground alone. It is specifically denied that on dated 08.12.2013 at about 9/10 p.m. complainant was going to crasher zone for lqading rodi crusher when he reach nearby Rehpua pull in the main while his dumper/vehicle’s pressure jack suddenly fault and he parked his vehicle near the mechanic shop at safe side and he handed over the pressure jack to mechanic for its repair and went to the house of Attulah for help after some time when complainant reached at the place (mechanic shop) where the insured vehicle was parked but the insured vehicle did not find there and he tried to search the vehicle but the vehicle did not find despite afforded and he enquired about the stolen vehicle from mechanic etc. It is also denied that the next day i.e. 0912/2013 complainant reported the matter to police choki, Pingawa about the theft of the vehicle and also made the complaint to S.S.P. Mewat on dated 11/12/2013. The rest of para is wrong and denied. It is specifically wrong and denied that complainant informed the opposite party about the theft of the vehicle by unknown person on dated 09/12/2013 thereafter he also sent a registered letter dated 17-18/02/2014 regarding the theft of the insured vehicle to opposite party but the opposite party has not release the insurance amount despite several requested and linger on the matter by one pretext and other.
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. PW1/A and documents Mark P-1 to Mark P-11.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent closed the evidence after tendering the affidavit Ex. RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 to R-12.
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: 18.10.2019 (Rajbir Singh Dahiya)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).
(Urmil Beniwal)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Nuh (Mewat).
