DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 128/2017
D.No._______________________ Dated: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SURENDRA NATH SOOD S/o LATE SH. A.N. SOOD,
(SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY:
1. Smt. AMRITA SOOD W/o LATE SH. SURENDRA NATH SOOD,
2. SH. AMAR SOOD S/o LATE SH. SURENDRA NATH SOOD,
3. SH. TEJ SOOD S/o LATE SH. SURENDRA NATH SOOD,
4. MS. PUNEET SOOD D/o LATE SH. SURENDRA NATH SOOD,
R/o H. No.280, SECTOR-29, NOIDA,
GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH-201301.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INS. CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, 110-115,
KRISHNA APRA BUSINESS SQUARE PLOT D-4-6,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE,
PITAM PURA, NEW DELHI-110034. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 13.02.2017
Date of decision:27.05.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that the complainant is owner of the Car i.e. Hyundai Santro bearing Registration No. UP-16-V-7184 and the said vehicle was insured from various insurance company from time to time and the
CC No. 128/2017 Page 1 of 10
complainant purchased a Comprehensive Insurance Policy bearing no. V3405422 in the year-2014 for the said car from OP for the period from 04.12.2014 to 03.12.2015 and in lieu of the same hefty premium amount was paid by the complainant and the officials of OP at the time of the issuance of the insurance policy assured that the policy was a comprehensive policy including 3rd party rights as well as theft. On 12.09.2015, the above said vehicle was stolen from the parking lot outside the Icare Eye Hospital, Sec-26, Noida and the First Information Report in this regard was lodged with Noida Sec-20 Police Station on the same day by Turantlal Kamati who was the driver of the complainant without any delay and despite the investigation undertaken by the police to trace out the car, the car could not be traced out and resultantly a closure report was filed by the police before the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, District Courts Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P. The complainant further alleged that hehad been pursuing the case with OP and had provided all the requisite papers/information as requisitioned by OP from time to time and after the passing of the said order regarding the vehicle being untraceable, the complainant was directed by OP to furnish the documents i.e. R.C., Insurance Certificate, address proof, FIR registered with the Sec-20, Noida, Gautam Budhh Nagar Police Station, RC particulars statement (in lieu of the original Registration), Certificate which was in the car when it was stolen, RTO Forms 29 & 30, No Transfer Request Letter, Statement
CC No. 128/2017 Page 2 of 10
regarding loss of 2nd key, Letter on Stamp Paper stating that the original Registration Certificate was in the car when it was stolen and untraced report by the police. Thereafter, the said documents as requisitioned by OP were duly submitted by the complainant and no further documents were requested by OP and the same were accepted satisfactorily by OP and OP assured the complainant that they will do the needful within a few days. The complainant further alleged that the executives of OP kept harassing the complainant by sending e-mails stating that one or the other document is yet to be supplied by the complainant and as per the requirement the complainant supplied all the documents to OP. The complainant further alleged that during the months of October and November-2015, the complainant had been requesting OP to expedite the case by requesting theofficials of OP and writing e-mails to OP but without any positive response and OP failed miserably in providing clear answers to the query of the complainant and vague answers were given, keeping the complainant in a limbo and OP also sent a claim inspector for the initial findings of the case however to no avail. On 10.11.2015, OP requested the complainant for duplicate set of the ignition key of the car and OP in lieu of the same was apprised by the complainant that the spare key of the car had been misplaced inside the house of the complainant couple of years back i.e. latter half of 2013 and the same was not available with the complainant anymore. The complainant further alleged that the
CC No. 128/2017 Page 3 of 10
complainant wrote several e-mails to the officials of OP apprising them of the exact situation and the hardship that the complainant is made to face and the officials of OP stopped replying to the mails of the complainant and having no other option left the complainant was constrained to correspond with the officials of OP with the e-mail account of his son and OP with dishonest intentions to exonerate itself from its lawful liability closed the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 09.05.2016 stating that the claim of the complainant is denied because of no response on part of the complainant and as such the claim cannot be left indefinitely open and the complainant replied to the said mail stating that he has been actively responding to the queries of OP and it was rather OP who kept silent and did not respond to the mails of the complainant. Thereafter, OP in order to overcome the reason for the rejection of the claim sent another letter dated 20.05.2016 stating that a new reason for rejection of the claim, being the 2nd ignition key not been handed over to OP and OP further stated that since no clarification has been received by OP as such the claim was closed as “no claim” and the complainant explained to the officials of OP that the key had already been lost but arbitrarily placed reliance on Clause 4 of the insurance policy which reads as under is “the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss and to maintain in the efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or
CC No. 128/2017 Page 4 of 10
any part thereof or the driver or employee of the insured and in the event of any breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage.” The complainant further alleged that the vehicle was stolen only in 2016 and whereas the keys were misplaced inside the house way back in the latter half of 2013 and the possibility of the misplaced key having been used to steal the vehicle is remote and not plausible and especially when the car was stolen from the Icare Centre Parking lot and the clause 4 of the policy does not specifically provide that in all events the ignition key of the vehicle has to be changed and the clause 4 is restricted to taking all reasonable steps to safe guard the vehicle which was done in the present case. The complainant further alleged that despite having been provided with all this information with the other relevant documents as per the directions of OP during the course of the investigations and the claim of the complainant has been rejected on completely arbitrary and unreasonable grounds and it beyond logic and improbable that the keys stolen in the year 2013 will be used for the purposes of theft in the year-2016 and the complainant repeatedly called and exchanged e-mails with the executives of OP pointing out all these facts and OP in fact had agreed to release the insurance claim amount subject to deduction of 25% only if the complainant had signed a letter stating that he will not be filing any complaint against OP. The complainant further alleged that there is
CC No. 128/2017 Page 5 of 10
an act of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to hold OP to be guilty for deficiency in providing services, to hold that the letters dated 09.05.2016 and 20.05.2016 thereby repudiating the claim of the complainant is illegal and arbitrary and is void ab-initio, to remit a sum of Rs.1,27,901/- equivalent to IDV of the vehicle in question as well as compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- for causing mental, physical pain, agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.35,000/- towards cost of litigation alongwith interest on the said amount @ 15% p.a. from the date of incident till actual realization.
3. OP has been contesting the case and filed reply and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP further submitted that the complainant is the owner of a vehicle i.e. Hyundai Santro manufactured in the year-2008 having the Registration No. UP-16-V-7184 and the complainant was interested in Motor Secure-Private Car Insurance Comprehensive Policy of OP and wanted to avail the benefits of the same, thus on the basis of the repeated requests sent by the complainant and OP had issued the Motor Secure-Private Car Insurance-Comprehensive Policy with the IDV of Rs.1,27,901/- in favour of the complainant vide policy no.2014-V3405422-FPV which was valid from 04.12.2014 to 03.12.2015. OP further submitted that during the continuance of the insurance policy the insured vehicle was stolen on 12.09.2015
CC No. 128/2017 Page 6 of 10
and the vehicle was parked outside Eye Care Clinic, Sec-26, Noida at around 08:45 a.m. by the son of the insured and when he returned after sometime he noticed that the vehicle was missing and an FIR was lodged with Noida Sec-20 Police Station vide FIR No. 1211 u/s 379 of the IPC and as the vehicle was not traceable and the police filed a closure report before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, District Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P. OP further submitted that when the complainant intimated OP about the theft, a claim was lodged with OP and a claim no. CV559587 was assigned to the case and OP promptly appointed the investigator namely “CPS Associates” to investigate the whole matter thoroughly and after the completion of the investigation, the investigator filed his report in the said matter and the complainant was informed about a list of mandatory documents which he needs to provide to OP in order to further process the claim vide a letter dated 16.09.2015. OP further submitted that the complainant was again informed vide a letter dated 10.11.2015 to supply the documents namely RC of the vehicle, Original Court untraced report, RTO transfer Forms 29 & 30 (two copies each and signed by insured) and recent address proof of insured and were still not provided to OP by the complainant and also the complainant was informed that he had not submitted the 2nd original key of the vehicle to OP. OP further submitted that a number of e-mails were exchanged between the complainant and OP wherein OP came to know that
CC No. 128/2017 Page 7 of 10
the complainant had not submitted the 2nd ignition key of the said insured vehicle as the 2nd ignition key was lost few years back which shows that the complainant had not taken reasonable care in safeguarding the said insured vehicle from loss.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP and denied the contentions of OP.
5. It is not out of place to mention here that during the proceedings of the case, the complainant died on 27.04.2017 and in his place on the basis of application u/o 22 Rule 3 rws 151 CPC the Legal heirs of the complainant have been substituted in place on deceased complainant and brought on record.
6. In order to prove the case,Sh. Tej Sood son of the complainant filed his affidavit inevidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant placed on record copy of Motor Secure-Private Car Insurance-Comprehensive Policy, copies of repudiation letters dated 10.11.2015 & 11.02.2016, copies of e-mail communications, copies of Closure Letters dated 09.05.2016 & 20.05.2016, copy of letter dated 28.01.2016 sent by the complainant to OP, copy of letter dated nil sent by the complainant to MLO, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Noida, copy of FIR and copy of declaration of the complainant to the effect that original Registration Certificate of the car was inside the vehicle when the car was stolen and copy of order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the Court of CJM, Gautam Buddh Nagar regarding acceptance of untraced report.
CC No. 128/2017 Page 8 of 10
7. On the other hand on behalf of OP Sh. Amit Yadav, Senior Executive (Claims) of OP filed his affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the written statement of OP. OP also filed copy of Motor Secure-Private Car Insurance-Comprehensive Policy, copy of FIR, copy of Motor Claim, copies of repudiation letters dated 16.09.2015 & 10.11.2015 and copy of Motor Secure For Private Car Policy Wordings. OP did not file written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant. The testimony of the complainant has remained consistent and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. OP has not disputed the fact that the car was stolen from an authorized parking lot and so no negligence on the part of the complainant can be attributed. Furthermore, the complainant has clearly stated in his affidavit that the 2nd key of the vehicle was lost in the year around 2013 in his house and the car was stolen in the year around 2016 and the complainant would not have anticipated that the 2nd key would have resulted in the theft of the vehicle. So, it cannot be said that the complainant was negligent in keeping the vehicle in safe custody. Thus, it cannot be said that the complainant has violated the terms & conditions of the policy and accordingly OP has failed to prove its defence. Thus, it appears that OP has unlawfully repudiated the claim of the complainant. Accordingly, we hold OP guilty of deficiency in service.
CC No. 128/2017 Page 9 of 10
9. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,27,901/- being the IDV of the vehicle and the complainant to execute transfer documents in the name of OP.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awardedamount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP 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 25/27 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 27thday of May, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 128/2017 Page 10 of 10
UPLOADED BY:SATYENDRA JEET
