Delhi

North East

CC/198/2015

Dayanand Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future Generali India Insurnance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 198/15

 

In the matter of:

 

		Dayanand Sharma D-10/2, Ashok Mohlla, Gali No. 3, Maujpur, Delhi-110053.		Complainant
		Versus
	1           2	Future General India Insurance Company Ltd., First Floor, Unit No. 110 to 115, Krishna Apra Business Square Plot No. D-4-6, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110034   Indraprastha Automobiles A-1, Main Wazirabad Road, Bhajan Pura, Delhi-110094		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		05.06.2015
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		13.09.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		21.09.2017

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

Order by Shri N.K.Sharma

ORDER

1. Facts of the present complaint are that the complainant being the owner of Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck bearing No. DL-1-LP-8468 got the same insured with OP1 vide cover note F-1219010 for a period from 18.08.2012 to 17.08.2013. The said vehicle was earlier also insured by OP1. It has been stated that on 11.05.2013 the ECM of the insured vehicle was found missing, for which complaint was lodged in the PS: Zafrabad bearing NCR No.  809/2013 dated 29.05.2013. The complainant had informed OP’s dealer at Bhajanpura office on 11.05.2013 itself. Surveyor appointed by OP1 inspected the vehicle and collected the relevant documents from the complainant and informed that his claim shall be settled within 8-9 months. It has been further stated that even after a lapse of 10 months, OP1 failed to settle the claim. On 26.09.2014 the complainant made an enquiry  with respect to the claim bearing No. CV278658, where he was informed that the relevant documents  have not been submitted by the complainant. The complainant has stated that he was suffering loss of Rs. 1500/- per day, as he was using the insured vehicle for earning his livelihood. It has further been stated that complainant had obtained quotation for ECM which costs Rs. 35,280/-. Legal notice dated 23.01.2015 was served upon OP1 which was neither replied nor complied with. Hence, the present complaint seeking directions to OP1 to pay a claim of  Rs.35,280/- being the cost of stolen ECM alongwith 24%  interest from the date of loss, Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment,            Rs. 50,000/- as compensation towards losses caused to the complainant and Rs. 25,000/- cost of litigation. The complainant has annexed legal notice dated 23.01.2015 alongwith proof of service, election ID Card and Aadhar Card, undated letter to Manager, Future General India Insurance Company Ltd, Stock transfer issue by OP2, F.I.R. dated 29.05.2013, Policy Cover Note for period 2011-12 and policy cover note for the period of 18.08.2012 to 17.08.2013 with complaint.
2. OP1 filed their reply upon service of notice of present complaint. In their defence it was stated that the claim of complainant had already been repudiated for non submission of documents vide letter dated  29.08.2013 and the claim was not bonafide as the complainant had lodged claim dated 11.05.2013 alleging theft of ECM on the intervening night of 10/11.05.2013 but the NCR was registered in PS: Zafrabad on 29.05.2013, stating that the ECM of insured vehicle had fall down. OP1 have also stated that the complainant failed to furnish mandatory documents required for processing of the claim such as original estimate, copy of FIR, copy of fitness certificate and original repair invoice despite the fact that the surveyor and OP1 had written letters dated 02.06.2013, 08.07.2013 and 29.08.2013 requesting the complainant to furnish the same. It was due to non fulfilment on the part of the complainant, the claim was closed. Territorial jurisdiction of this Forum was also disputed wherein it was stated that the policy cover note was issued from Faridabad office. OP1 has annexed copy of NCR No. 809/13 and Motor Claim Form as Annexure OP1 & OP2 respectively, letters dated 02.06.2013, 08.07.2013 & 29.08.2013 have been annexed as Annexure OP3, OP4 & OP5 respectively, copy of surveyor report annexed as Annexure OP6, copies of cover note and policy schedule annexed as Annexure OP7 & OP8, Stock Transfer Issue No. MIS15J000024 dated 10.10.2014 issued by OP2 annexed as Annexure OP9 with their reply. Rest of the contents of complaint were denied.
3. In rejoinder to the reply filed by OP1, the complainant stated that the date of theft of ECM was 11.05.2013 and as police officials had delayed the registration of F.I.R., same was registered after lots of persuasion on 29.05.2013 as NCR. Rest of contents of reply were denied and those of the complaint were reiterated.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant. He has stated that on 11.05.2013 the ECM of the insured vehicle was found missing and he went to PS: Zafrabad to lodge an F.I.R. of theft but the official on duty didn’t register the same. Rather NCR No. 809/13 dated 29.05.2013 was registered with statement that the ECM had fallen from moving car. OP1 examined, Shri Nishant Sharma, Assistant Manager Legal and got exhibited the document annexed with their reply. He has stated that the claim was lodged with respect to alleged theft on 11.05.2013 stating that the ECM was found to be missing and right hand side door of the insured vehicle was found to be open. Whereas, in NCR No. 809/13 registered at PS: Zafarabad dated 29.05.2013, it was stated that the ECM of insured vehicle had fallen out on 29.05.2013.
5. We have perused material on record. The complainant has filed the present complaint with the allegation on OP1 for non-settlement of claim thereby amount to deficiency in service. However, OP1 has placed on record closure letter dated 29.08.2013 wherein the claim of complainant has been closed due to non submission of necessary documents.

OP1 has annexed the claim form as “Annexure OP2” which bears the signature of the complainant dated 11.05.2013, this implies that the complainant had informed OP on the same day of incident. The claim of the complainant was rejected due to non-supply of required documents despite several letters to the complainant same is substantiated in surveyors report. Nothing has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that the documents necessary for settlement of claim had been submitted by him, being so, he cannot allege  deficiency in service on part of OPs. As far as OP2 is concerned, no deficiency in services has been alleged against them in the complaint.

6. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed without order to cost.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 21.09.2017)   

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)             Member