Delhi

North East

CC/334/2022

Nadeem Ahmed - Complainant(s)

Versus

Acko General Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.334/22

In the matter of:

 

	Nadeem Ahamad S/o Naseem Ahamad R/o 26, Banti Khera, Babri Marg, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar U.P 251305	Complainant
	Versus
	The General Manager/Chairman ACKO General Insurance Ltd., Unit No. 301, 3rd Floor, E-Wing, Lotus Corporate Park, Off Western Express Highway Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400063	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

08.08.2022 30.11.2023 06.02.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Party i.e. The General Manager/Chairman ACKO General Insurance Ltd.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Opposite Party had issued Comprehensive Insurance Policy on 14.02.2020 for the Complainant’s vehicle bearing no. UP 19 T 2419 Maruti Celerio for sum insured of Rs. 3,50,000/. Complainant stated that on 23.02.2020 the vehicle of the Complainant was parked at Shiv Vihar Tiraha parking and on 25.02.2020 the vehicle of the Complainant was burnt by some unidentified anti-social element during the communal rites in that area. The complainant informed about the said incident to the S.H.O of P.S Dayalpur on 02.03.2020 and an FIR no. 125/20 was lodged in the P.S Dayalpur. On 04.03.2020, statement of the Complainant was also recorded by the I.O of the case. Complainant further stated that since the said vehicle of the Complainant was insured with the Opposite Party, hence, the Complainant approached Opposite Party many times for settlement of the claim of the vehicle of the Complainant but all in vain. Complainant sent a legal notice on 28.10.2020 and as per requirement of the Opposite Party, Complainant sent all the necessary documents to the Opposite Party for settlement of the claim. It is his case that at last Opposite Party refused the claim of the Complainant on the pretext that since previous policy of the Complainant was fake; hence, Opposite Party was unable to settle the insurance claim of the Complainant. On 19.05.2022, Complainant again sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party but the said legal notice was not served to the Opposite Party. Hence, this shows the deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 3,50,000/- i.e. the insured amount of the vehicle of the Complainant along with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of 25.02.2020 till realization. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of pain and suffering. 
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party despite service of notice to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.12.2022.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and by the Opposite Party as well.
5. It is the case of the Complainant that the subject vehicle was insured by the Opposite Party under a Comprehensive Insurance Policy for sum insured of  Rs. 3,50,000/-. It is alleged that on 25.02.2020, the said vehicle was burnt by some unidentified anti-social element during the communal rites in that area as the vehicle was parked in Shiv Vihar Tiraha parking.  An FIR no. 125/20 was lodged in the P.S Dayalpur in this regards and statement of the Complainant was also recorded by the I.O of the case. Complainant further stated that since the said vehicle of the Complainant was insured with the Opposite Party, Complainant sent all the necessary documents to the Opposite Party and approached Opposite Party many times for settlement of the claim of the vehicle but the Opposite Party refused the claim of the Complainant on the pretext that since previous policy of the Complainant was fake; hence, Opposite Party was unable to settle the insurance claim of the Complainant. It is alleged that there has been lapse on the part of the Opposite Party in not settling the claim.
6. We have considered the contentions of the Complainant and also perused the record of the file. It has come to our notice that the Opposite Party has filed their written arguments wherein they have taken the stand that the claim of the Complainant was rejected by the Opposite Party company on the ground that previous policy was found fake. Since, the Opposite Party failed to file its reply and evidence in support of their contention, the said defence cannot be considered.
7. On further perusal of the material on record, we find that the Complainant has produced copy of subject insurance policy issued by the Opposite Party in the name of the Complainant insuring the subject vehicle. The Complainant has also contended that he informed the concerned S.H.O. vide D.D.18-B and on the basis of that complaint and complaints of other victims in the same incident, common FIR no.125/20 was lodged. The Complainant has supported his contention with copy of said D.D. and FIR.
8. From the perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant, it is evident that the subject vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party and during the subsistence of that policy and FIR was lodged that the said vehicle was burnt by some miscreants during riots.
9. It is alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party has rejected his claim despite having furnished all the required documents. Since, Opposite Party was unable to settle the insurance claim of the Complainant, it amounts deficiency on their part and the Complainant is entitled to the insurance amount with compensation.
10.  In view of the fact that Opposite Party has failed to file their version, we are left with no option except to believe the version of the Complainant which is testified on oath.
11. In view of above discussion and the unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of the Complainant regarding the deficiency of services on the part of Opposite Party, we are of the considered view that the Opposite party has been deficient in services by not settling the valid claim of the Complainant.
12. Thus, we allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party i.e. ACKO General Insurance Ltd. to pay to the Complainant the insurance claim amount       i.e. Rs. 3,50,000/- (IDV) along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of institution of the complaint. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay  Rs. 35,000/- towards compensation and the litigation cost along with interest    @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till its recovery.
13. Order announced on 06.02.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)