Uttar Pradesh

Aligarh

CC/253/2022

RAJA NAGAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

12 Nov 2024

ORDER

न्यायालय जिला उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग अलीगढ

Complaint Case No. CC/253/2022 ( Date of Filing : 24 Dec 2022 )   1. RAJA NAGAR S/O SRI MOOL CHAND NAGAR R/O GALI NO1 RAMNAGAR COLONY ITI ROAD ALIGARH ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURENCE C52 SECTOR 51 ALIGANJ LUCKNOW BY MANAGER 2. GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE LTD TOWER VTH IFCI 61 NEHURU PALACE NEW DELHI BY REGIONAL MANAGER 3. RAHUL GARG S/O SRI PROMAD KUMAR GRAG R/O GOOLAR ROAD SHAKTI NAGAR ALIGARHOFFICE ADDRESS RTO OFFICE KE SAMANE AGRASEN WALI GALI 1 ALIGARH ............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:     HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI PRESIDENT   HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA MEMBER   HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT MEMBER

PRESENT:

Dated : 12 Nov 2024

Final Order / Judgement The present complainant has filed by the complainant before this commission for the following reliefs:-    The Ops be directed to pay the assured sum of the insured Truck  amounting  Rs. 24 lac with interest at the 18%  per annum, the     The ops be directed to pay cost of the case and Counsel Fees Rs. 20,000/-      Ops be directed to pay expensive Rs. 20,000/- incurred by the Complainant.   Ops be directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for  compensation and mental sufferings.     Any other relief which the court deems fit be granted in favour of the complainant. Complainant has stated that his Truck bearing registration no. UP81-BT-8007 was insured with the Ops insurance company and the insurance was valid and effective from 31.12.2020 to 30.12.2021. The insured sum was Rs.24 lac. On 10.02.2021 the driver Anil Kumar had gone to Urai from Aligarh to bring badarpur by the truck and he parked the truck in front of Deepak Dhaba P.S. Malawal District Etah.  He had gone to take meal. Having taken meal when the driver came out then he did not find the truck there. He made a telephonic call on 112 number and he brought the occurrence into the notice of the complainant. When the complainant went to lodge the report at P.S. Malawal but his report was not registered and he then reported to SSP, Etah. He moved application in the Court of Civil Judge, Etah to get the report registered. By the order of the court FIR was registered and FR was submitted which was accepted by the court on 11.12.2021. complainant immediately informed the insurance company about the occurrence. Complainant submitted the papers and keys to the person who was appointed by the insurance company to conduct inquiry. Complainant completed all the formalities but no payment was made by the insurance company. Insurance company asked to get the finance agreement cancelled and to submit the agreement cancellation papers. Complainant paid the entire amount to the financial company and the finance company cancelled the loan agreement and the cancellation letter was given by the finance company which was submitted to the insurance company but the insurance company made no payment.         Op no. 1 and 2 stated in W.S that the truck bearing no. UPU 81 BT 8007 was insured with the Op for the period w.e.f. 31.12.2020 to 30.12.2022 for IDV of Rs. 19 lac and the policy was issued subject to its terms and conditions. The incident of theft of the truck happened on 10.02.2021 but the FIR was lodged on 19.03.2021 and the theft was reported with delay. Complainant had failed to submit the documentary evidence to prove that the Police was informed immediately. Hence, delay in intimation of theft and failure to furnish documents are the violation of policy conditions. Complainant has no cause of action to file the compliant. Op no. 3 has not interested the case. The complainant has filed affidavit and papers in support of his case. Ops have filed affidavit and papers. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? It is evident that the FIR was lodged under the order of the court and FR was submitted which was accepted by the court. There is sufficient explanation on behalf of the complainant for delay in lodging the  FIR. The claim could not have been denied on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. Complainant has stated in the compliant that he had submitted all the documents to the person who was appointed to conduct inquiry into the matter and therefore, Ops insurance company cannot be said to be justified in declining the claim on the said ground. Thus the Op insurance company committed deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and is liable to pay the assured sum of the insured truck which was Rs. 24 lac. as per total IDV as mentioned in the policy details. The question formulated above is decided in favour of the complainant.  We hereby direct the Ops to pay the amount Rs. 24 lac. with pendente lite and future  interest at the rate 18% per annum. Ops are further directed to pay compensation Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and litigation expenses Rs. 20,000/-.  Ops shall comply with the directions within 30 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non compliance in accordance with section-72 of the Act for awarding punishment against it.    A copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties as per rules as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act-2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.     File be consigned to record room along with a copy of Judgment.

[HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI] PRESIDENT     [HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA] MEMBER     [HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT] MEMBER