STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No.SC/27/CC/15/813 Shri. Satnam Singh Joginder Singh Padda, Aged about 45, Occupation: Transport, Bima Complex, A-5010, Steel Market, Kalamboli, Taluka: Panvel, Navi Mumbai – 410218. ….... Complainants Versus Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, ‘C’ Wing, Delphi Building, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. ....... Opponent BEFORE:

Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member APPEARANCE:

For Complainant : Advocate Jyoti Ram Advocate Manisha Kadam For Opponent : Advocate Shaswat Vidyarthi Advocate Asim S. Vidyarthi

JUDGMENT

(Date 06-03-2026)

Per: Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member

1. The Complainant had filed the present consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party – Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.

2. It is the case of the Complainant that he was the registered owner of a TATA Motor Truck Trailer bearing Registration No. MH- 06-AQ-3313, which was duly insured with the Opposite Party under a comprehensive motor insurance policy for the period from 11.09.2008 to 10.09.2009, for an Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.26,00,000/-. The insurance policy was valid and subsisting on the date of the incident.

3. According to the Complainant, on the night of 04.02.2009 at about 6.00 p.m, the insured vehicle was properly parked near Bima Complex, Steel Market, Kalamboli. The driver then left the place to meet his friend at Govandi on the prior intimation to the owner complainant. On the next morning, the driver found that the vehicle was missing. The incident was immediately brought to the notice of the Complainant, who along with the driver made efforts to trace the vehicle but it was not found.

4. As the complainant had to rush to Punjab for unavoidable urgent work ,the complainant asked the driver to report the fact to Police . Accordingly, the fact of missing of the vehicle was given to the Kalamboli Police Station on 05.02.2009 by the driver. As per the Complainant, the police initially advised to search the nearby area and thereafter the complainant submits that on his return from Punjab a FIR was lodged with kalamboli Police station on 19.02.2009. The theft was also intimated to the Opposite Party insurance company by letter dated 06.02.2009. The complainant submitted that as the vehicle was under scheme of hypothecation a proper intimation to the financer –L & T Finance company was given by letter dtd. 04.03.2009.

5. It is further pleaded that after completion of investigation, the police submitted an “A Summary” report at JMFC Panvel court dtd 29.07.2009 issued under No.277 of 2009 certifying that the vehicle could not be traced. The said report and certificate were duly placed on record.

6. The Complainant contended that despite lodging a valid claim with the Opposite Party and submitting all requisite documents, the Opposite Party failed to settle the insurance claim. According to the Complainant, there was prolonged silence and inaction on the part of the Opposite Party.

7. Subsequently, the financer intimated about tracing of a vehicle, as there were heavy dues payable to financer,the financer was pressurising for repayment of loan .The complainant then repaid the loan amount to the financer i.e L&T Finance limited .The financer after repayment issued a letter with NOC and form 35 for recording termination of HPA /hypo on the records . The traced vehicle was taken into custody by the police on 22.02.2010 and later handed over to the Complainant. However, during inquiry by the Transport Authority, it was found that the chassis number of the said vehicle was tampered with. The matter was referred to the forensic laboratory, which confirmed that the recovered vehicle was not the same vehicle that was insured and stolen.

8. The Complainant asserted th