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.311/22

In the matter of:

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has 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 on 13.09.2021 he had purchased an E-rickshaw bearing no. DL-8ER-9916 from Neel Auto Mobile. Complainant stated that on 16.09.2021 he had insured the said vehicle from the Opposite Party of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The period of the said policy was from 16.09.2021 to 16.09.2022. Complainant stated that on 27.12.2021 the said vehicle was stolen and in this regard he immediately informed the Opposite Party. Complainant stated that on 27.12.2021 he lodged an FIR in this regard in P.S. Seemapuri vide FIR no. 007423/2022. Complainant stated that the concerned Police Station could not recover the vehicle in question. Complainant stated that on 23.05.2022, concerned court accepted the untraced report and on 04.07.2022 he submitted the untraced report to the Opposite Party vide an e-mail. Complainant stated that he submitted all the required documents which was required by the Opposite Party. Complainant stated that on 08.03.2022, he was informed by the Opposite Party that the claim of the Complainant was repudiated due to violation of condition no. 1 i.e. non availing of driving license and non-filing of FIR for the incident. Complainant stated that he visited the office of Opposite Party several times but Opposite Party did not pay any claim.  On 17.05.2022, he sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party but it did not give any reply. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- i.e. insurance claim along with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date it became due and payable. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and   Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is stated that FIR was registered after a delay of 115 days. It is stated that no PCR call was made to the police authorities. It is submitted that even no PCR call was made to the police after the alleged incident of theft. It is stated that as per the statement of Complainant his E-rickshaw was snatched by some persons while carrying the said persons in his E-rickshaw. It is stated that as per the case of the Complainant he was hit on his head by the said persons and such happening has not been mentioned by him in the e-FIR dated 22.03.2022. It is alleged that he was taken by some person to GTB Hospital but the Complainant has failed to provide any document/MLC of the GTB Hospital. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed.  

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 assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint. the Complainant also filed affidavit of Shri Manoj Prasad in his evidence who has stated that on 27.12.2021 he found that the Complainant was lying unconscious in front of DLF Drain then he took the Complainant to police station Seemapuri and the police advised him to take the Complainant to GTB Hospital for admitting him in the Hospital and for medical treatment. He has stated that police of P.S Seemapuri also came at GTB Hospital.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri. Aniruddh Kiran Kale, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant as revealed from his complaint is that on 27.12.2021 his E-rickshaw was stolen and he informed the Opposite Party and also got registered the FIR on 27.12.2021. In his affidavit filed in evidence, he has supported this assertion. However, the Complainant has filed one affidavit of Mr. Manoj Prasad in his evidence who has stated that on 27.12.2021 he found that the Complainant was lying unconscious near the DLF, Drain. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that some passengers who were travelling in the E-rickshaw of the Complainant had hit the Complainant on his head and they took away the E-rickshaw of the Complainant but this fact has not been mentioned in the complaint.  The mode of theft has stated by the Complainant in his affidavit, in complaint and in e-FIR is contradictory to the mode of theft as revealed by Shri Manoj Prasad(Complainant witness). This creates a serious doubt in the Complainant case.
7. The Complainant has stated in the complaint that he has intimated the Opposite Party and the police regarding the theft on the day of incidence. However, this is no true as revealed from the document. E-FIR was registered on 22.03.2022. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant submitted that there was delay in lodged the FIR as the Complainant was injured during the incident of snatching of the E-rickshaw and was under treatment in GTB Hospital. The Complainant has not stated that he was undergoing treatment in GTB Hospital. Even no document regarding the treatment of the Complainant in GTB Hospital has been filed on record.
8. The theft of E-rickshaw as told by the Complainant was on 27.12.2021 and e-FIR was registered on 22.03.2022. There is a considerable delay in lodging the e-FIR and the delay has not been explained. As discussed above, the Complainant and the witness i.e. Shri Manoj Prasad has taken contradictory stand. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is a gross violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
10. Order announced on 16.07.2024.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.