DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 828/2016
D.No.________________ Dated: ___________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ms. BABITA VERMA,
THROUGH HER HUSBAND
SH. BIJENDER SINGH S/o DAYANAND,
R/o KHASRA No. 437/2, LAXMI VIHAR,
BURARI, DELHI-110084. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. M/s BHARTI AXA GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
BIG JO’S TOWER, 2nd FLOOR, A-8,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, PITAM PURA,
NEW DELHI-110034.
2. RAJPOOT MOTORS,
A-3, GT KARNAL ROAD,
ADARSH NAGAR, DELHI-110033. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 20.08.2016 Date of decision:04.04.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that on 16.04.2015, the complainant booked a motor cycle
CC No.828/2016 Page 1 of 9
namely TVS-Apache-RTR 160 R.D. with OP-2 and paid Rs.5000/- in cash vide receipt no. 5231 as the booking amount of the motor cycle. On 20.04.2015, the complainant purchased the said motor cycle from OP-2 and the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.79,800/- vide receipt no. 5252 and the engine no. 25892 and chassis no.58512 as per the delivery receipt bearing no. 12306 dated 20.04.2015 and the complainant made the total payment of Rs.84,800/- to OP-2 at time of possession of the vehicle on 24.04.2015 and OP-2 handed over a red slip towards the trade certificate no. of the vehicle bearing no. DL-08-TC-0155 and there was no instruction and warning to the complainant that she cannot run the vehicle or otherwise. Thereafter, OP-2 as an agent of OP-1 got the insurance of the vehicle of the complainant from OP-1 on 24.04.2015 vide insurance policy no. FTW/S3515075/12/04/ 003678 which was valid for the period from 24.04.2015 to 23.04.2015 and OP-2 worked as an agent of OP-1 got the insurance of the Bharti AXA Gene. Ins. Co. Ltd. and the complainant got the insurance of its new vehicle and has paid the insurance premium amount of Rs.1,822.47/- to OP-2 being the agent of OP-1. On 03.05.2015, the complainant paid all charges including Registration charges to OP-2 vide invoice no.197, after delivery the complainant kept her vehicle at her shop at Patanjali Arogya Kendra, Main 100 Foota Road, Burari Delhi,Kharsra no. 437/2, Laxmi Vihar, Burari,
CC No.828/2016 Page 2 of 9
Delhi and the said vehicle was parked in front the shop of the complainant and was stolen from that place at about 5:08 P.M. of 03.05.2015 and an FIR no.000930 dated 04.05.2015 was got registered in Police Station. On 08.05.2015, the complainant informed to OP-1.On 19.05.2015, the complainant requested the MLO/DTO Road Traffic Authority, RTO Wazir Pur for supplying the RC particular of the said vehicle for the purpose of the claim process. The complainant further alleged that the complainant came to know that OP-2 has deposited the registration fees with road tax on 05.05.2015 while the complainant has paid the registration charges to OP-2 on 24.04.2015. On 12.05.2015 a letter from Mr. Mohan Pandey claims recovery consultant deputed by OP-1 asked the list of documents for the processing of claim and on 14.05.2015 the complainant submitted the duly filled claim form as required by OP-1 and again on 07.09.2015, the complainant sent the e-mail wherein specifically stated that the claim is pending from 08.05.2015 and the complainant submitted all the relevant information to the office of OP-1. On 07.09.2015, OP has registered the complaint and generated the complaint no. BHG037977 and OP-1 on one pretext or another delayed the redressal of the complaint. On 09.09.2015, OP-1 sent a letter to the complainant alleging that “the said vehicle was purchased on 24.04.2015, the vehicle was stolen on 03.05.2015 and vehicle got registered on
CC No.828/2016 Page 3 of 9
05.05.2015 after 1stday of theft occurred and after 10 days of vehicle purchase and the vehicle was plying on the road without any valid registration certificate. Further as per Sec. 39 of Motor Vehicle Act appended below, the vehicle must be registered before plying in public place… from the above it is clear that there is a clear breach of MV Act Sec. 39 and the contents of the letter were against the facts of the case and the vehicle was not plying at the time of incidence the vehicle was generally parked at the outside of the shop of the complainant. On 16.09.2015, the complainant has received the letter from OP-1 with all the details of said policy including the terms and conditions, guidelines, other relevant details of insurance coverage of the vehicle and the policy documents. On 22.01.2016, the complainant made her written complaint to the office of the Insurance Ombudsman regarding OP-1 has neither settled the claim nor paid any claim to the complainant and on 09.02.2016, the office of the Insurance Ombudsman registered the complaint of the complainant and asked the written consent in terms of rule 12(2) of the Redressal of Public Grievance Rules, 1988 for Ombudsman to act as a mediator between the complainant and the company. On 25.02.2016, the complainant sent an e-mail to OP-1 and requested to settle claim in full without further delay and on 02.03.2016, OP-1 sent an e-mail stating that claim has been repudiated and the act of repudiation of
CC No.828/2016 Page 4 of 9
claim during the pendency of the matter before Ombudsman is illegal and in disregard to the authority of the office of Insurance Ombudsman. On 15.03.2016, an order has been passed by the office of the Insurance Ombudsman in which the office of the Ombudsman has given opinion vide letter dated 16.03.2016 that the complainant committed the breach of the Motor Vehicle Act by not getting the vehicle registered and plying the vehicle without registration no. The complainant further alleged that the complainant wasno whereat fault for the registration of the vehicle and due to the said act of the OP-1 the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying fordirection to OPs to pay an amount of Rs.84,800/- damaged suffered by the complainant alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of theft i.e. 03.05.2015 till the date of filing the present complaint amounting to Rs.1,05,788 and grant pendentlite and future interest @ 18% as well as compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental harassment, agony and financial loss.
3. OP-1 has been contesting the case and filed reply and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its part and the case of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP-1 further submitted that the vehicle TVS-Apache RTR (two wheeler)
CC No.828/2016 Page 5 of 9
having chassis no. B-58512, Engine no. 725892 was insured with OP vide policy no. FTW/S3515075/12/04/003678 for the period from 24.04.2015 to 23.04.2016 subject to terms and condition contained therein and the IDV of the vehicle as per policy was Rs.70,978/-. OP-1 further submitted that the deficiency in service if any is on part of OP-2 as OP-2 has allowed the insured to take vehicle without registration certificate and has not arranged temporary registration number before delivery of the vehicle to the complainant. OP-1 further submitted that intimation of theft of vehicle was given to the company after delay of 5 days as intimation was given on 08.05.2015 and the same is a violation of policy condition no.1 and as such claim is not maintainable.
4. Whereas none for OP-2 appeared despite service of notice through speed post on 31.08.2016 as per track report. As none for OP-2 has appeared, accordingly OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.01.2017.
5. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP-1 and submitted that the complainant has not violated any terms & conditions of policy and the vehicle was parked at the premises of the complainant and without having any proof OP-1 has presumed that the complainant was plying the vehicle without any document. Complainant further submitted that registration fee and road tax of
CC No.828/2016 Page 6 of 9
the vehicle was deposited by the complainant with OP-2 on 24.04.2015 and the complainant has not given any false declaration to Transport Authority.
6. In order to prove the case the complainant’s husband Sh. Bijender Singh filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copies of receipts no. 5231 dated 16.04.2015 of Rs.5,000/- and no.5252 dated 24.04.2015 of Rs.79,800/- issued by OP-2, copy of delivery receipts no. 12306 dated 24.04.2015 issued by OP-2, copy ofinsurance policy issued by OP-1 on IDV of Rs.70,978/-, copy of transcript of proposal for smart motor two-wheeler-package policy issued by OP-2, copy of retail invoice no. 04/197 dated 03.05.2015 issued by OP-2 of Rs.84,800/-, copy of FIR no. 000930 dated 04.05.2015, copy of letter dated 19.05.2015 sent by the complainant to MLO/DTO Road Traffic Authorityfor issuance of RC particulars, RTO Wazir Pur, Delhi, copy of letter dated 12.05.2015 sent by investigator to the complainant, copy of claim form, copy of format (OTS-F-12) RTGS/NEFT-Mandate Authorization Form, copy of cancelled cheque, copies of e-mail communication between the parties, copies of letters dated 09.09.2015 & 16.09.2015 sent by OP-1 to the complainant, copy of letter dated 22.01.2016 sent by complainant to the Insurance Ombudsman, copy of letter dated 09.02.2016 sent by Insurance Ombudsman to the complainant,
CC No.828/2016 Page 7 of 9
copy of letter dated 16.03.2016 sent by Insurance Ombudsman to the complainant and copy of order dated 15.03.2016 of Insurance Ombudsman.
7. On the other hand on behalf of OP-1Ms. Shivali Sharma, Sr. Executive-Legal Claimsof OP filed her affidavit which is on the basis of the reply of OP. OP also filed written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the lightof evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record bythe complainant and OP-1. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant and there is no genuineness and merits in the defence of the OP-1. It is the admitted case that the complainant has deposited registration charges, road tax as well as insurance premium to OP-2 on behalf of OP-1. No evidence has been lead by OP-1 that the complainant was plying the vehicle on road without registration certificate as the complainant has clearly stated that the vehicle was parked in the premises of the complainant. It seems that OP-1 without any basis has taken the false plea and defence and the same is not believable. Accordingly, we hold the OP-1 guilty of deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.70,978/- being the IDV of the vehicle.
CC No.828/2016 Page 8 of 9
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.
10. The above amount shall be paid by the OP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 4th day of April, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED (USHA KHANNA) M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER)(PRESIDENT)
CC No.828/2016 Page 9 of 9
