Haryana

Gurgaon

cc/53/2012

Dal Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                             DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001

                                                                                                         Consumer Complaint No: 53 of 2012                                                                                                                       Date of Institution: 14.02.2012                                                                                                                                                Date of Decision:  21.06.2016

Dal Chand R/0 WZE-14, Gali No.24, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd through its Director, E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

 

 

1020125-FF, Flat No.313 (D), Sushant Arcade, Sushant Lok-1, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002.

 

M/s RSIBP Ltd,

Through its authorized representative FF, Flat No.313(D), Sushant Arcade, Sushant Lok-1, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002.

 

..Opposite parties

                                                                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                   SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Shri Dal Chand, complainant in person

                    Shri Arun Yadav, Adv for the OP-1

                    OP-2 exparte        

 

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he was registered owner of vehicle make Sonalika Rhino bearing Regd. No.HR-55-JT-0330 and the same was insured with the OP vide Policy No.102015/31/10/004678 with IDV of Rs.5,70,000/- which was effective from 18.02.2010 to 17.02.2011. On 14.02.2011 the vehicle in question was being driven by its driver Rajbir Singh  and suddenly his vehicle stopped during to some mechanical problem and the same was parked near IOC Palam Road and the driver went to bring the mechanic around 11.00 and when he returned back about 12.45 pm then he found the vehicle missing. The driver tried his level best to trace the vehicle but it could not be searched out. The driver of the complainant namely Rajbir had registered a police complaint at P.S.Delhi Cantt  and on 14.02.2011 FIR No.24 dated 15.02.2011 at P.S.Delhi Cantt was registered. The complainant submitted his claim vide Claim No.10000/31/11/C/0040881 and fulfilled all the requirements as demanded by the OPs but the OPs have wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 06.08.2011 which tantamaoutns to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to reimburse the claim of the complainant along with interest and compensation.

2                 OP-1 Insurance Company in its written reply has alleged that the driver of the complainant was not vigilant and careful about the insured vehicle which is against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. A prudent person cannot leave his vehicle in an abundant condition anywhere. The driver had left the vehicle unattended at the place of alleged occurrence and willfully has not reported the matter to the police at least up to 35 hrs which is clear breach of motor policy. If the matter had been reported to the police immediately after the alleged incident it might be possible that the vehicle could be traced out by the police. Hence, the OP was not liable to indemnify the alleged claim of the complainant and thus, the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the OP and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.

3                 However, OP-2 failed to turn up despite service and thus, was proceeded exparte vide order dated 09.01.2013.

4                 The complainant in support of his claim has filed his affidavit, copy of RC (Ann-A, certificate of fitness (Ann-B), authorization for  tourist taxi permit (Ann-C), contract carriage permit (Ann-D), copy of FIR dated 15.02.2011 (Ann E), final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C.(Ann-F), Motor Vehicle Cover Note/Insurance Policy (Ann-G), intimation letter given to the OP (Ann-H), repudiation letter dated 06.08.2011 (Ann-I), copy of legal notice dated 11.11.2011 (Ann-J) and postal receipt (Ann-K).

5                 The OP-1 in support of his version has filed the affidavit of Vishal Gupta, Assistant Manager (Legal), office of the OP at Jaipur, policy certificate (Ex.OP-1), terms and conditions of insurance policy (Ex.OP-2) and repudiation letter dated 06.08.2011 (Ex.OP-3).

6                 We have heard the parties and have perused the record available on file.

7                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties  it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that the complainant got his vehicle bearing Regd. No.HR-55-JT-0330 insured with the OP vide Policy No.102015/31/10/004678 with IDV of Rs.5,70,000/- which was effective from 18.02.2010 to 17.02.2011. However, during the subsistence of the insurance policy the vehicle was stolen by someone on 14.02.2011 and in this regard FIR No.24 dated 15.02.2011 at P.S. Delhi Cantt was registered. The complainant intimated the opposite party regarding theft of vehicle and submitted all the documents but the claim of the complainant was wrongly and illegally repudiated by the OPs vide their letter dated 06.08.2011 which tantamounts to deficiency in service on their part

8.                However, as per the contention of the OP, the complainant failed to take all reasonable care and precautions and the driver of the vehicle has left the vehicle unattended and as such there was breach of terms and conditions No.5 of the insurance policy. However, there was delay of lodging the report with the police and in intimating the insurance company about the delay.  The claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 06.08.2011.

9                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case it emerges that there was no dispute regarding the insurance of the vehicle of the complainant in question with the opposite party. The theft of the vehicle is also not in dispute.  However, the sole ground for rejection of the claim of the complainant was that there was breach of term and condition No.5 of the insurance policy as the insured had failed to take all reasonable steps to safeguard his vehicle from the loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition but the opposite parties failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that the insured had not taken proper steps to safeguard the vehicle because the driver of the vehicle had  parked the vehicle  duly locked and has not left the keys inside the engine. What precaution the insured has not taken has not been explained by the opposite parties.  In the instant case the FIR has also been registered on the next day of the theft.

10.               Therefore, we are inclined to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. We direct the OP-1  to reimburse the claim of the complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 14.02.2012 till realization as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy . The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.The OP-1 shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

Announced                                                                                                          (Subhash Goyal)

21.06.2016                                                                                                                 President,

                                                                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                    Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member