Delhi

East Delhi

CC/913/2013

UDAY PRATAP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

FAIR DEAL - Opp.Party(s)

13 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.  913/13

 

Shri Uday Pratap Singh

S/o Shri Vakeel Singh

R/o H. No. 51, Gharonda

Neem Ka Banger, peer Wali Gali

Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092                                                   ….Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. Fair Deal

Bajaj Auto Authorized Dealer

Through its Proprietor/Manager

At C-1, South Ganesh Nagar

Main Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. The New India Assurance Company

Branch Office no. 323202

4767/23, Pratap Street

Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi – 110 092                               ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 28.11.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 13.09.2017

Judgment Passed on: 13.09.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Uday Pratap Singh has filed a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), against M/s. Fair Deal (OP-1) and the New India Assurance  Company (OP-2).

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a motor cycle bearing no. DL-7SBL-5415, Engine no. DHGBTN-53267, Chasis no. M02DHDHZZTCM 70413, make of Bajaj Pulsar Model no. 2011, from M/s. Fair Deal (OP-1), which was insured with New India Assurance Company (OP-2).  The vehicle was insured/renewed vide policy no. 32320231120100000619 for the period of 19.04.2012 to 18.04.2013 for a sum insured Rs. 51,500/-. 

            It has been stated that on 01.05.2012 at about 5.30 p.m. when the complainant was on the way, all of a sudden, the vehicle/motor cycle stopped itself and thereafter despite number of efforts, the motor cycle could not start.  The complainant tried to search the mechanic nearby, but could not find out and after sometime, finding no alternative, the complainant took the vehicle to the service lane and parked the same in front of Haldiram near Cross River Mall.  The complainant locked the motor cycle and went to search a mechanic and came to Krishna Nagar market at 7.30 p.m.  He asked the mechanic, who refused to leave his workshop.  The complainant, finding no alternative, returned back to his house and he was assured that the motor cycle was parked and locked properly at safe place. 

            On the next day on 02.05.2012, in the morning, when the complainant alongwith mechanic reached at the spot, he was shocked not to find his motor cycle.  He searched the motor cycle nearby, but failed to trace.  He went to Anand Vihar Police Station and got an FIR No. 116/12 under Section 379 of IPC lodged.  He informed the Insurance company also. 

            The Insurance company sent a surveyor, who completed all the formalities.  He assured the complainant that he will complete the formalities and will help the complainant to get the insurance claim.  Since the complainant did not pay any commission to the surveyor, he sent a false report, on the basis of which the Insurance company rejected his claim.  Thus, he has stated that there was deficiency on the part of Insurance company for which he also suffered mental pain and agony.  Hence, he has claimed the insured amount of Rs. 51,500/-  alongwith interest @ 24% p.a.; Rs. 20,000/- compensation on account of mental and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.       In the reply, filed on behalf of M/s. Fair Deal (OP-1), they have stated that there was no cause of action against them.  They have denied other facts.

          In the WS, filed on behalf of the New India Assurance Company (OP-2), they have also stated that there was no deficiency on their part.  It has been stated that the complainant failed to take reasonable care and left the vehicle unattended.  They have denied other facts also.

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1 and  OP-2, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.       In support of its case, complainant have examined himself on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.CW1/A), copy of policy (Ex.CW1/B, copy of FIR (Ex.CW1/C), repudiation letter dated 15.10.2012 (Ex.CW1/D), RC of the insured motor cycle (Ex.CW1/E) and copy of cash memo of motor cycle (Ex.CW1/F).

          No evidence has been filed on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2.

6.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and OP-2 and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of complainant that repudiation of claim by New India Assurance Company (OP-2) was not as per law.  He has argued that reasonable care was taken. 

          On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OP-2 have argued that there was no deficiency on their part and claim was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was standing at unauthorized parking. 

          It is admitted fact that the vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company (OP-2) for IDV value of Rs. 51,500/-.  The repudiation of claim has been only on the ground of unauthorized parking.  The time of incident, as depicted from the FIR, has been 7.10 p.m.  The explanation, which has been given by the complainant for parking the vehicle in front of Haldiram, near Cross River Mall has been that he went to have the mechanic at Krishna Nagar Market, but the mechanic did not accompany him due to late hours. 

          The fact that the complainant could not get his vehicle repaired due to late hours and there was no other option with the complainant except to park the vehicle in front of Haldiram, near Cross River Mall, it cannot be said that he did not take reasonable care and parked the vehicle at an unauthorized parking.  The repudiation of claim on this ground cannot be said to be justified.  That being so, there has been deficiency on the part of New India Assurance Company (OP-2) by repudiating the claim.  When there has been deficiency on the part of New India Assurance Company (OP-2), certainly, the complainant have suffered mental pain and agony for which he have to be compensated. 

          In view of the above, we order that New India Assurance Company (OP-2) shall refund an amount of Rs. 51,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 15.10.2012.  We further award an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental pain and suffering.  This includes the cost of litigation.

          The order be complied within a period of 45 days, if not complied, the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- shall also carry 9% interest from the date of order.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President