Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/834

OIC LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALJEET SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:26.04.2016

First Appeal No. 834/2012

 

(Arising out of the order dated 16.04.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 785/2009 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum-VI, ‘M’ Block, Ist Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi)

In the matter of:

 

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

15-16, Sciendia House

Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi

 

Through its Divisional Manager

Divisional Office No. 10

101, LSC, Ist Floor

H-Block Market

Vikas Puri

New Delhi-110018                                    …..........Appellant

 

Versus

Sh. Baljeet Singh

S/o Sh. S.Mahinder Singh

R/o E-5/12, Krishna Nagar

Delhi-110051                                           ……...Respondent

CORAM

N P Kaushik     -        Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                  Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                     Yes

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

1.      The appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has impugned the orders dated 16.04.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum VI, New Delhi. Vide said orders, the complaint was allowed. OP/appellant herein was directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,89,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of orders till the date of realisation. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- was also awarded.
2.      Facts of the complaint are not in dispute. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their original status in the complaint. A bus belonging to the complainant and bearing No. DL-1PB-620 was stolen on the night of 17.10.2007 from the roadside parking at SPM Market Near Kodiapul, Delhi. Complainant discovered the fact on the next morning and lodged a report with Police Station Kotwali Delhi on 18.10.2007 itself. On the same day requisite information was given to the OP i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. OP appointed a surveyor who submitted his report dated 25.01.2008.  Surveyor opined that the incident seems to have happened on 17.10.2007. Complainant gave a letter to Sh. Virender Kumar Deputy General Manager of the OP conveying his consent to receive the claim on substandard basis i.e. 75% of the assessed loss. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 5,61,000/- was paid to the complainant by way of a cheque dated 15.04.2009. Registration certificate of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the OP on 08.04.2009. To make the things clear, an amount of Rs. 1,89,000/- was deducted by the OP out of the total insured value.
3.      Complaint was filed in the District Forum by the complainant on 12.05.2009 alleging that the written consent was taken from him when he was badly in need of money for arranging the marriage of his daughter which took place on 12.04.2009. Letter dated 01.04.2009 is exhibited as exhibit C-1 while dictating these orders.
4.      Complaint was contested by the OP on the grounds that the insured had not taken all reasonable steps to safeguard his vehicle from loss or damage.  No caretaker was appointed by the complainant to take care of the vehicle at the time of theft.
5.      Next objection raised by the OP in his defence was that there was a delay in filing of the FIR. Theft of the vehicle took place on 17.10.2007 and the FIR is dated 04.11.2007. OP relied upon the case of Devender Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [(1986-2005 Consumer 8542 (NS)]. In the said case a delay of four days in reporting the matter to the police was held as violation of the terms of the policy.
6.      In relation to the consent letter OP relied upon the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd. (C A No. 619/2005) (29.09.2006). The Apex Court held in the said case there was no fraud and the complainant himself had issued the discharge voucher. There was no complaint that the discharge voucher had been obtained fraudulently or by coercive bargaining. Complainant had accepted the amount with eyes wide open and freewill.
7.      Ld. District Forum while allowing the present complaint observed that there was no cause for rejecting the full claim and treat the claim on non standard basis as the complainant had given an intimation to the police on 18.10.2007 which was recorded by the police vide bill diary No. 11BF dated 18.10.2007 P.S.Kotwali.
8.      Present appeal has been filed on the grounds that the loss in question was reported to the police after seventeen days of the occurrence. OP/appellant also submitted that the Ld. District Forum erred in not taking into account the depreciation @ 10%, and the excess clause alleging deduction of Rs. 1500/- and deduction of 20% amount for delay in lodging the FIR.
9.      A careful perusal of the consent letter dated 01.04.2009 shows that the letter was written after discussion held with the OP on 01.04.2009 and prior to that. It was claimed that the claim was accepted on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the IDV. Perusal of the written version of the OP submitted in the District Forum shows that the complainant accepted the said amount for making expenditure of the marriage of his daughter (para 9 of the preliminary objections of written version). It clearly goes to show that the factors that weighed with the complainant for accepting the claim were the pursuation done by the OP and the financial constraint of meeting the expenditure of daughter’s marriage. Obviously it was a case of coercive bargaining. Be that as it may, this plea has not been raised by the appellant in his grounds of appeal. Appellant has not taken a plea that the complainant is estopped from wriggling out of the consent letter. Consent letter dated 01.04.2009, therefore, does not help the OP in any manner.
10.  OP deducted 25% of the IDV value on the sole ground that there was a delay of seventeen days in lodging the FIR. As discussed above, the complainant had given intimation to the police immediately after the discovery the factum of theft on the morning of 18.10.2007.  Policy had recorded DD entry in this behalf. A formal FIR was however recorded by the police on 04.11.2007 only on the basis of the DD entry and not on the basis of any fresh information given by the complainant. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders of the trial forum except that it omitted to take into account the excess clause and the depreciation value of 10%. Appeal is, therefore, partly allowed to the extent that the OP is permitted to deduct the amount of Rs. 1500/- (on account of excess clause) and 10% of the assured amount on account of depreciation. Trial forum has rightly held that the claim on the basis of sub-standard basis was not justifiable in the eyes of law. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
11.  Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
12.  FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)