Delhi

North East

CC/89/2021

Mr. Santosh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Go Digit General Insurance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

Complaint Case No. 89/21

 

In the matter of:

 

		Mr. Santosh Kumar, S/o Late Khiladi Ram, H.No. A3/302, Street No. 3, Amar Colony, East Gokalpur, Delhi 110094		Complainant
		Versus
		Go Digit General Insurance Ltd., Through the Manager Spring House, 3rd Floor B-1/638A, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER:		23.07.2021 21.09.2023 18.01.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased E-battery Rickshaw for a sum of Rs. 1,03,888/- in cash. The said E-rickshaw was insured with the Opposite Party by paying a sum of Rs. 7,300/-. The insurance was valid from 26.11.2019 to 25.11.2020. The total IDV of the said insured vehicle was Rs 1,00,000/-. Complainant stated that on 02.12.2019, Complainant parked his E-rickshaw at H.No. A3/302, Street No. 3 Amar Colony, East Gokulpuri, Delhi 94 at 09:30 p.m and the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person. After that the Complainant along with his family member searched the vehicle in question but did not find. After that Complainant lodged an FIR on 04.12.2019 with the e-PS Jyoti Nagar, vide FIR No. 04253. Complainant also informed the said incident to the Opposite Party as well as Regional Transport Authority. Complainant stated that the untraced report filed by the police in the court of Ms. Ambika Singh, MM, vide order dated 10.01.2020. On 21.01.2020, Complainant lodged his claim with the Opposite Party. Complainant further stated that a surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Party and surveyor raised objections vide letter 02.05.20 on the ground of: Original Key not submitted, delay in intimation and failed to submit repossess letter, loan statement from financer, original RC, fitness of subject vehicle, PCR call detail, letter received from RTO, NTR from Hon’ble Court. Complainant further stated that the said letter was wrongly addressed to someone else however policy number mentioned is of Complainant. After that the Complainant submitted his reply and documents to the surveyor. It is his case that he also submitted both the original keys to the Opposite Party. Complainant was a laymen and he was told that only after final report of policy claim could be filed. Complainant stated that surveyor raised irrelevant objections and despite receiving all the documents, Opposite Party till date neither repudiated the claim nor admitted the claim of the Complainant. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for RS. 1,00,000/- (IDV of the vehicle), Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is the case of the Opposite Party that the Opposite Party had issued “Digital Commercial Vehicle Package Policy” vide policy no. D010655151 for a GRD motors bearing registered no. DL-5ER-9360 to the Complainant which is valid from 26.11.2019 to 25.11.2020 for own damage cover, and for third party cover. It if further submitted by the Opposite Party that the Complainant in the present complaint is claiming for an indemnification of loss incurred by him, due to alleged theft of his vehicle that took place on 02.12.2019. Thereafter, company registered claim bearing no. 202000012682 and set into motion the process of claim settlement. The company has promptly informed the Complainant about the procedure to be followed to enable us to process the claim. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party that a physical inspection of spot and verification was carried out by an authorized investigator of the Opposite Party. Accordingly, a detailed report of the inspection dated 28.01.2020 was presented which disclosed many facts that were material for the Opposite Party to decide whether the said claim was admissible or not. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party that Opposite Party had received the intimation about the said theft on 21.01.2020 i.e. 50 days after the alleged theft was committed. The inordinate delay affects their right to correctly analyse the admissibility of loss. The same is breach of condition 1 of the policy issued to Complainant, relevant portion of which is as follows; “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.” It is further submitted by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had submitted two local duplicate and one remote of the insured vehicle to the Opposite Party. It was found that one key submitted was unused and the other key claimed to be used had no wear-tear mark or striation mark which is normal in due course of usage. It is further submitted on behalf of the Opposite Party that if the original key or remote were lost, then the Complainant should have taken reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from theft including without limitation, replacement of lock set. However, the Complainant failed to take reasonable steps to avoid such loss and it amounts to negligence on the part of the Complainant. Further it is pertinent to note that condition no. 4 of the policy opted by the Complainant iterate that- “the insured shall take reasonable steps to safeguard vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured.” It is further submitted that the Opposite Party owing to the observations made by us from the available documents and to not be inadvertently prejudiced against the Complainant, hence via letter dated 07^th May 2020 requested Complainant to provide for documentary evidence showing the genuineness of the keys submitted and unreasonable delay in intimation of the claim to the opposite insurance company. Therefore, the Complainant was given 7 days time to support his claim with any document or reason for further consideration. The Complainant failed to provide any reasonable justification to the above mentioned letter seeking reason for further processing of the claim, due to non cooperation and misrepresentation of vital information from the claimant side and failure to respond to the queries raised the claim relating to vehicle theft could not be closed till date. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of company, since the company has given sufficient opportunity to the Complainant to explain the discrepancies noted and to submit the documents. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party herein challenges the genuineness and legitimacy of the copy of the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by MM. Ambika Singh. It is pointed out that the Opposite Party has checked the order status on the official website of the Karkarduma Court and there are only two orders passed by the Learned ACMM on the said day. It is stated that none of the orders passed on that day pertain to this matter. It is further submitted that the copy of the order attached with the complaint shows discrepancies that are apparent on the face of record that suggests that the copy of the order has been forged. The digital signature put in the said order is not at its usual place as well as even the designation of the Hon’ble ACMM is not present at the bottom of the signature. The format which is generally followed by the Hon’ble Courts has not been followed in the said order as well as all the necessary contents which are required by the law to be present in the order are absent. The body of the order is vague and leads the Opposite Party to doubt its genuineness and conclude that the same is forged. It is further stated that the letter annexed by the Complainant as Annexure 8 is not the letter sent by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has only sent the letter to the Complainant made on the cover letter of the Opposite Party where we have correctly addressed the Complainant and have asked for the documents that are required to process the claim in timely fashion. It is stated that all the responses that are sent from the side of Opposite Party to anyone are generally sent on its cover letter. Therefore, the wrongly addressed letter is not the response sent by the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that the Complainant has not received the additional documents as stated by the Complainant; therefore, the delay is caused because of the lackadaisical behaviour of the Complainant. It is further submitted that the whole story has been fabricated by the Complainant to cause wrongful loss to the Opposite Party herein. As further proof of mischief in the present circumstances it is reiterated that he forged an FIR and an order of the court passed by the judge who does not even entertain the matters of this kind. All these facts just add up to the one conclusion that the whole claim was bogus right from the outset and all the annexure have been forged to corroborate the story concocted by the Complainant. It is further stated that the Complainant has not approached this forum with the clean hands and he only attempts to defraud the Opposite Party. It is further stated that the Opposite Party is not being deficient in his services, rather he has been set up by the Complainant and therefore the Opposite Party is not liable for any kind of compensation as damage.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Mr. Sandeep Mohanty, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Opposite Party. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party to address oral arguments. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased E Rickshaw for a sum of     Rs. 1,03,888/- and the same was insured with the Opposite Party and insurance was valid from 26.11.2019 to 25.11.2020. The total IDV of the said insured vehicle was Rs 1,00,000/-. On 02.12.2019, the said E rickshaw was stolen and after searching the said vehicle by the Complainant along with family members he could not find the E rickshaw in question. He lodged an FIR on 04.12.2019 with the concerned police station. Complainant also informed the said incident to the Opposite Party as well as Regional Transport Authority. Complainant further stated that the untraced report filed by the police and the same had accepted by the competent court on 10.01.2020. On 21.01.2020, Complainant lodged his claim with the Opposite Party and Opposite Party appointed a surveyor and surveyor raised objections vide letter 02.05.20 on the ground of: Original Key not submitted, delay in intimation and failed to submit repossess letter, loan statement from financer, original RC, fitness of subject vehicle, PCR call detail, letter received from RTO, NTR from Hon’ble Court. Complainant submitted his reply and documents to the surveyor along with original keys. Opposite Party neither repudiated the claim nor admitted the claim of the Complainant. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.
7. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that the said e-rickshaw was insured by them and said e-rickshaw was stolen during the validity period of the insurance policy. Opposite Party appointed a surveyor, on receipt of the claim from the Complainant and detailed report of the inspection dated 28.01.2020 was submitted by the surveyor to the Opposite Party. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party that they had received the intimation about the said theft on 21.01.2020 i.e. 50 days after the alleged theft was committed. The inordinate delay affects their right to correctly analyse the admissibility of loss. The same is breach of condition no. 1 of the policy issued to Complainant. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had submitted two local duplicate and one remote of the insured vehicle to the Opposite Party and it was found that one key submitted was unused and the other key claimed to be used had no wear-tear mark which is normal in due course of usage. On 07^th May 2020, Opposite Party requested the Complainant to provide for documentary evidence showing the genuineness of the keys submitted and unreasonable delay in intimation of the claim to the Opposite Party. The Complainant failed to provide any reasonable justification to the above mentioned letter seeking reason for further processing of the claim and due to non cooperation and misrepresentation of vital information from the Complainant side and failure to respond to the queries raised the claim relating to vehicle theft could not be closed till date. Since, Complainant failed to submit required documents and explanation, there is no deficiency on their party. Opposite Party also challenged genuineness of untraceable report submitted by the Complainant. Opposite Party also raised doubt about the FIR.
8. After going through the inspection report submitted by the Opposite Party along with its written statement, it is revealed that the surveyor in his report stated that he visited the concerned police station and verified from the police record and found that FIR to be a genuine document and also mentioned about the untraced report filed by the concerned police station which was accepted by the competent court. Further it is revealed from the surveyor’s report that during the course of their investigation their representative visited the residence of the insured and held discrete enquiry related to the vehicle in question and found that the incident of theft has happened and Complainant submitted all the required documents to the Opposite Party.
9. It is clear from the above facts and circumstances that the said E-rickshaw was stolen within the validity of the policy period and FIR was lodged with the concerned police station and untraced report also accepted by the competent court. Further from perusal of the file it is also revealed that Opposite Party did not file any material or documentary proof with regard that two keys of the said e-rickshaw were not original or genuine and also did not filed any document regarding non-genuineness of FIR and untraceable report and on the other hand, their surveyor verified the document and found genuine.
10. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay the IDV of the E-rickshaw i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of  Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
11. Order announced on 18.01.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President