DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 740/2017
D.No._______________________ Dated: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s AHUJA CONSTRUCTION Co.,
THROUGH SH. ASHWANI AHUJA,
SOLE PROPRIETOR,
R/o D-43, SATYAWATI COLONY, PH-III,
ASHOK VIHAR, DELHI-110052.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INS. CO. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT:
1ST FLOOR, UNIT No.110-115,
KRISHNA APRA BUSINESS SQUARE,
PLOT No. D4-6, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110034.
2. MBS ASSOCIATES,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: F-81,
UTSAV APARTMENT, SEC.-18,
ROHINI, DELHI-110089. … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 07.09.2017
Date of decision:19.07.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 11 &12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that the complainant is the Regd. Owner of vehicle i.e.
CC No. 740/2017 Page 1 of 7
Honda City 1.5 GXI bearing registration no. DL-3C-BE-0706, engine no.139823, chassis no.409838 and manufacturing year-2008 and the said vehicle was insured with OP-1 vide policy no. 2016- V4263351-FPV for the period from 28.01.2016 to 27.01.2017 on the premium of Rs.8,349/- and the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.3,24,900/-. On 16.12.2016, the son of the complainant Mr. Mudit Ahuja took the car out and he parked the car outside Gopal Sweets, Kamla Nagar, Delhi at about 9:00 p.m. after which he was picked up by his friend and they went to Connaught Place, New Delhi and when the son of the complainant returned to the place at around 12:00 (mid-night), where the said car was parked and the said car was not found at the place where it was parked. The complainant further alleged that in the said car were also the documents of the said vehicle like the registration certificate, insurance policy etc. and such other documents and also the laptop of the complainant’s son and the incident of theft was reported to the police by the son of the complainant on 17.12.2016 and no such information an FIR no. 037065 dated 17.12.2016 was registered at P.S. e-police Station-M.V. theft Distt. Crime Branch, Delhi u/s 379 of IPC. Thereafter, the factum of theft was intimated to OP-1 by the complainant on 28.12.2016 i.e. after about 12 days of the incident and the complainant could not intimate the theft to OP before 28.12.2016as he was not having the relevant documents
CC No. 740/2017 Page 2 of 7
of the said vehicle and only after about a few days the documents of the said car and reported the claim to OP-1 on 28.12.2016 and OP-1 in breach of the relevant provisions vide letter dated 02.01.2017 rejected the claim of the complainant citing fact that the loss/claim was intimated to OP on 28.12.2016 and not before and in the terms & conditions of the insurance policy, there was no period prescribed for the filing of claim/intimation of loss to OP-1 and thus, OP-1 wrongfully and with ulterior intentions in mind rejected the claim of the complainant without any valid reason and OP-2 is the agent of OP-1 and is Insurance Investigators and Claims Advisors and OP-2 vide letter dated 02.02.2017 & 12.04.2017 sought to investigate the claim of the complainant and called upon the complainant to furnish as many as 21 documents to investigate the claim and the complainant was unable to provide such documents which included public documents like the untraceable report of the concerned M.M. etc. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent legal notice dated 01.06.2017 through his Counsel to OP vide which they were called upon to process the claim and re-imburse/indemnify the claim/loss caused to the complainant and OP-1 vide letter dated 09.06.2017 & 20.06.2017 in reply of the legal notice reiterated that as loss/theft was intimated to them on 28.12.2016 therefore they are rejecting
CC No. 740/2017 Page 3 of 7
the claim and thus the claim of the complainant was closed. The complainant further alleged that there is 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 OP-1 to pay the IDV of the said car i.e. Rs.3,24,900/- due to theft on 16.12.2016 as well as compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for causing mental, physical pain, agony and harassment and has also sought cost of litigation.
3. OP-1 has been contesting the case and filed reply and submitted that OP-1 had granted insurance cover to the complainant on his vehicle and insurance was effective for the period from 28.01.2016 to 27.01.2017 and the insurance was granted subject to terms & conditions as stated in the policy and it is one of the condition of the policy that if any loss take place then notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon occurrence of loss. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant on 28.12.2016 informed OP that his abovementioned car has been stolen on 16.12.2016 and there was a delay of 12 days and the complainant has infringed the right of OP to get the claim investigated immediately after the theft took place and since there was violation of policy condition no.1 as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 02.01.2017. OP-1 further submitted that there was no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
CC No. 740/2017 Page 4 of 7
4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 and denied the contentions of OP-1 which has been taken in the reply of OP-1.
5. In order to prove the case,Sh. Ashwani Ahuja (Prop.) of the complainant firmfiled his affidavit inevidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant placed on record copy of retail invoice no. 002880/07-08 dated 28.01.2008 for a sum of Rs.7,30,000/- issued by Southend Honda (Saket Motors Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi, copy of registration certificate of the vehicle, copy of insurance policy issued by OP-1 alongwithwelcome letter dated 16.02.2016 sent to the complainant, copy of premium receipt, copy of FIR no. 037065 dated 17.12.2016, copy of repudiation letter dated 02.01.2017 issued by OP-1, copy of letter dated 02.02.2017 issued by OP-2 to the complainant, copy of final reminder dated 12.04.2017 issued by OP-2 to the complainant, copy of legal notice dated 01.06.2017 sent by the complainant through his Counsel to OP-1 by Regd. A.D. alongwith copy of postal receipt, copy of closure letter dated 09.06.2017 and copy of repudiation letter dated 20.06.2017 sent by OP-1 to the complainant.
6. On the other hand on behalf of OP-1Sh. Amit Kumar, Assistant Manager Legal filed his affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the reply of OP-1. OP-1 has also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by
CC No. 740/2017 Page 5 of 7
the complainant. The testimony of the complainant has remained consistent and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. In his affidavit, the complainant has clearly stated that his son Sh. Mudit Ahuja has taken the car out and he parked the car outside Gopal Sweets, Kamla Nagar, Delhi at about 9:00 p.m. after which he was picked up his friend and they went to Connaught Place, New Delhi and when he returned to the place at around 12:00 (mid-night) where the said car was parked but the said car was not found at that place nor in the vicinity of the place where the said car was parked. The complainant further stated that in the said car were also the documents of the said car like the registration certificate, insurance policy, some other documents and also the laptop of the complainant’s son. So, it cannot be said that the complainant was negligent in keeping the vehicle in safe custody. Moreover, as per the case of the complainant, FIR with the police was immediately lodged and it is for the police department to trace the vehicle. Thus, it cannot be said that the complainant has violated the terms & conditions of the policy and accordingly OP-1 has failed to prove its defence. Thus, it appears that OP-1 has unlawfully repudiated the claim of the complainant. Accordingly, we hold OP-1 guilty of deficiency in service.
8. Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:
CC No. 740/2017 Page 6 of 7
i) To pay to the complainant the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.3,24,900/-.
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.
9. The above amount shall be paid by 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 awardedamount @ 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 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. 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 19thday of July, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 740/2017 Page 7 of 7
UPLOADED BY:-SATYENDRA JEET
