Delhi

New Delhi

CC/844/2015

Suman Offset Printers - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

13 Nov 2019

ORDER

 

 

 

            CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

         (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

            ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                  NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C.844/2015                                                   Dated:

      In the matter of:

        Suman Offset Printers,

        Through its Partner

       Sh. Anupam Tyagi,

       Office at 185, Baba Patwri Market,

        Khichari Pur, New Delhi.

 

        R/o SRA-105C, Shipra Rivera,

         Indrapuram, Ghaziabad.

                …… Complainant

Versus

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

Ground Floor, Amandeep Building-14,

Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-01.

……. Opposite party

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is a partnership firm and Sh. Anupam Tyagi is one of the partner.  The complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing  No.DL 10CAF 3372(Ford Ecco Sports) duly insured with OP  for a period from 16.10.2014 to  15.10.2015 vide  policy bearing No.2311200609297401000  for a sum insured of  Rs.7,68,893/- for which he paid a premium of Rs.21,035/-. On 15.6.2015 around 7.00 a.m., Mr. Tyagi  parked his vehicle outside pulse gym and got it lost.   An FIR was registered by Police Station Indirapuram.  OP was also informed about the incident vide letter dt. 18.6.2015 and lodged a claim No.C230015032397 dt. 16.6.2015 with OP. It is submitted that the complainant deposited all the required documents with OP but OP  repudiated the  claim vide letter dt. 29.7.2015 on the ground that the complainant failed to submit the 2^nd key of the car in question.  The complainant approached OP and also submitted the copy of document dt. 29.4.2015 pertaining to the intimation of loss of key to In-charge P.S. Indirapuram.  The complainant also informed the OP about the untraced report issued by the  Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 16.7.2015 and requested to process the claim in question, but the OP did not pay any heed to it.  Being aggrieved, the complainant sent a legal notice dt. 21.9.2015 to the OP. Vide reply dt. 4.12.2015, the OP Insurance Co. rejected the claim on vague grounds, hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  OP has filed its written statement wherein it was admitted by the OP that the complainant has purchased the policy referred above.  OP stated that the after receiving the intimation of the claim, an investigation agency was appointed, who submitted its report on 20.7.2015.  The investigation agency cross-check the truth of lost of key with P.S. Kaushambi Chowki, where the police official informed that the seal on the letter seems original but there is no D.D. Entry to this effect.  It is further stated that the complainant has informed that he has lost the key, however, the complainant has not made any efforts to get the lockset replace which is one of the reason of theft of the car and as such, he failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from theft. It is further stated  that the repudiation is justified and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

3.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

4.     We have heard argument advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.     The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the complainant failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from theft.   Perusal of the document dt. 29.4.2015 shows that the complainant had already informed the police about the lost of the key.  Not having the 2^nd key in the possession does not mean that the complainant has associated in the theft of the car. But not replacing the lockset by the complainant amounts to negligence on the part of complainant to some extent. However, the repudiation of entire claim of complainant that its 2^nd key was missing is also not justified at all.  

6.     In these circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, the claim of the complainant be paid by the OP Insurance Co. on Non-Standard basis. We therefore, direct OP as under:

 

1. To settle the claim of the complainant on Non-Standard basis along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint i.e.14.12.2015.

 

2. Pay to the complainant for a sum of Rs.15,000/- as  litigation cost.

 

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on 13/11/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER