Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/452

Nayyar Electronic World - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                Date of institution: 06.07.2015

Complaint Case. No. 452/15                                                  Date of order:08.08.2017

 

IN  MATTER OF

Nayyar Electronic World  throughRavinder  Singh Nayyar  its  Partner, Shop No. RU-376,PitamPura,Delhi-­110088.

 

                                                                                                                        Complainant

VERSUS

 

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited   through its Manager/MD at Unit no. 502, 504 and  506, 5^th  Floor,Mahatta Tower B-1 Block Community  Centre, JanakPuri, New Delhi-110054.

Opposite  party

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            The present  complaint is filed  by Nayyar Electronic World through  ShriParvinder  SinghNayyar partner herein the complainant under section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act against HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. hereinafter in short   referred as the  opposite party for directions to the opposite party  to release claim of Rs. 9,73,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a.  being insured sum  of  stolen car, pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for  physical, mental and financial  harassment  and loss of reputation and Rs. 25,000/-  as litigation  expenses.

The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint as stated are that the complainant hadinsured  his car  make  Renault,  Duster RXZ diesel engine no. D008672chasis  no. MEEJSRA36CA008073 registration no. DL-11 CA 2500 under  policy no. 2311200610292700000 with the opposite party  for the period  from 10.11.2013 to 09.11.2014  for assured sum of Rs.  9,73,000/-  on payment  of Rs. 14,136/- as premium.  On 10.10.2014 the car was parked infront of his showroom  RU-376, Nayyar  Electronic World  at RU Block, Pitampura, New Delhi and was stolen.   The complainant reported the theft to the police and the opposite party immediately.   The opposite party appointed Suraksha Enterprisesas  surveyor.  The complainant provided all information and documents to the surveyor.  The police investigated the theft and submitted untrace report in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan  Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi.   Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan MagistrateRohini accepted theuntrace report.  Thereafter the complainant  with all relevant documents submitted  claim  no. C230014075386 of theft of his car with the  opposite party.  The opposite party assured to release claim of Rs. 9,73,000/- at the earliest.But, when the complainant did not receive the claim he sent e-mails to the opposite party.  He also made telephonic calls. But the opposite party in May 2015 repudiated  claim  of the complainant without any reasonable and justified  ground in violationof principles of natural justice. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite party to release claim of Rs. 9,73,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a.  being

assured sumof  the stolen car,  pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for  physical, mental and financial  harassment  and loss of reputation and Rs. 25,000/-  as litigation  expenses.

            After notice the opposite party appeared and filed reply whileraising  preliminary objections of  concealment of true and material facts and the   complaint is false and frivolous . However the opposite party admitted that the car was insured  with the opposite party .  The complainant submitted claim with the opposite party.  The opposite party appointed M/s Suraksha  Enterprises  an independent  investigating  agency to investigate the matter.  The complainant during the course of investigation supplied most of the  necessary documents and  during scrutiny of the papers it revealed that the complainant  failed to provide second original  key of the car and when explanation was  sought from the complainant  he told that the first original  key was lost on 24.08.2014 in a marriage  function and intimation was given to MauryaEnclave Police  Station on the same day.The  investigator  under RTI sought information from Maurya Enclave Police Station.  Who gave information that no such complaint was received on 24.08.2014 and registered  in the police station.   The complainant mis-represented and submitted a false and frivolous document dated 24.08.2014  intimation of loss of key of the car to the  police and has played  fraud  upon the opposite party and theForum.   The complainant violated condition no. 4 of the insurance policy on the ground  that he did not inform the police  of loss of the keyafter loosing the key at a public place.  He also  did  not take precaution of getting lock of the car  changed. This act of the complainant  helped the thief in stealing  the car.  The complainant  also  did not  report the theft of the  car immediately  to the  police and the opposite party.  Therefore, violated condition no. 1 of the insurance policy.  Therefore,  theopposite party  rightly  repudiated  claim of thecomplainant on the ground of violation of conditions  no. 1 and  4 of the  insurance policy.  All other  allegations of the  complainant  are  vehemently  denied  by the opposite  party and  prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party controverting stand of the opposite party and reiterated his stand taken  in the complainant .   He further  prayed for directions to the opposite party.

            When the complainant  was asked to lead evidence  by way of affidavit the complainant tendered  in evidence  affidavit  of Sh. Parvinder Singh Nayyar partner   narrating facts of the complaint.  The complainant also relied  upon policy no. 2311200610292700000 of car no. DL-11 CA 2500, letter dated 10.10.2014 written by the complainant to the opposite party  of intimation of theft of the car no. DL-11 CA 2500, motor insurance  claim form of car no. DL-11 CA 2500, letter dated

17.10.2014 of M/s Surksha Enterprises showing  receipt of documents of  theft , registration  certificate no.DL11CA2500 of car no.DL-11 CA 2500,, FIR  no. 776 dated 10.10.2014ofMaurya Enclave Police  Station, Order  dated 30.01.2015 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate  North West Rohini of acceptinguntrace report of  FIR no. 776/14 under section 379 of IPC, Police Station Mauraya Enclave, letter dated 24.08.2014 written by the complainant to SHO, Police Station Maurya Enclave  of  intimation  of theft  of  one set of key  of car no.  DL-11 CA 2500, letters dated 15.05.2015 and 22.05.2015  written by the complainant to the  opposite party , letters dated 28.05.2015 and 29.05.2015written by the opposite party to the complainantintimating  repudiation of the claim.

            When the opposite party was asked to   lead evidence they filed  affidavit of Sh. Pankaj  Kumar Manager Legal  narrating facts of the reply.  They also  relied upon Exhibit  RW 1/1 insurance policy no.2311200610292700000 with terms and conditions, Exhibit RW 1/2 application under RTI  for information  from Police Station Mauraya Enclave , Exhibit RW 1/3  report submitted by M/s Suraksha Enterprises, Exhibit 1/4 letter dated 14.05.2015 of   repudiation of the claim of the complainant.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record carefully and thoroughly.

            After having heard learned counsel for the parties, going through the complaint, reply, affidavits and documents relied upon by both the parties it is common case of the parties that claim of the complainant was repudiated on the grounds of misrepresentation of non disclosure of the claim fact.   The complainant 

did not  take  step to safeguard  the car.  Therefore, there is violation of terms and conditions no. 1 and 4 of the insurance policy. 

            The case of the complainant is that one original key of car was lost on 24.08.2014.  The complainant reported the matter at police station Maurya Enclave. In support of his case the complainant has relied upon letter dated 24.08.2014 of information of loss of key of the car at police station Maurya Enclave Delhi.  Therefore,  the complainant  took all precaution to safeguard  the car.

            Whereas the case of the opposite party is that after loss of the key on 24.08.2014 the complainant neither reported the matter to the police nor got changed lock of the car.  Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that had the complainant got changed lock of the car after loss of the key on 24.08.2014,  thecar could not be stolen. Hencethe complainant himself assist the thief to steal

the car.  Therefore,  he violatedcondition no. 4 of the insurance  policy.

            Before proceeding further it is worthwhile to reproduce condition no. 4 of the insurance policy. 

            “The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard  the 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 .  In the event of any accident or breakdown , the vehicle  shall not be left unattended without proper  precautions being taken  to prevent further damage or  loss and if the vehicle  be driven  before the necessary repairs  are affected  any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle  shall be entirely  at the insured’s own risk”

             From reading of condition no. 4 of the insurance policy it is evident that the complainant was required to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the car fromloss  or damages.  But the complainant did not get the lock of the car changed.  He also did not report loss of the key to the police.  Hence the complainant did not take proper precaution  to safeguard the car.

            Learned counsel for the opposite party further argued that the complainant has manufactured a forged document dated 24.08.2014 showing report of loss of

key  of the car at police station Mauraya Enclave,Delhi.   The police of  police station Maurya Enclave  vide letter (DEPOL/R/2015/ 12544) ID  No.  901/15/2571

RTI-Cell/NWD dated 30.04.2015 intimated  M/s Suraksha Enterprisesthat no complaint of loss  of key of car no.. DL-11 CA 2500 wasreceived  in the police station 24.08.2014.Therefore, the police has also not recorded anyD.D.R on 24.08.2014 regarding loss of the key .  He further argued thatthe letter dated 24.08.2014 produced by the complainant is forged and hasbeen manufactured just to create  evidence of  report of  loss of key to the police on the ground  that this letter is not  signed by any police official and no DDR is recorded on the basis of this letter.  He further argued that the surveyor has sought  information  under the  RTI  Act about reporting the matter  to the police of loss  of the key of the car and the police specifically  denied  report of the matter to  the police by the complainant.

            The contention raised of  the learned counsel  for  the opposite party is tenable,   firstly on the ground that  the complainant has failed to  prove  that loss of the key of car was reported at police station  MaurayaEnclacve Delhi.   Secondly, even if for the sakeof arguments  it is presumed that  loss of the key  of the car was reported to the police,the complainant after loss of the key  of the care could easily got lock of the car changed.    The key of the car was lost on 24.08. 2014.The car was stolen  on 10.10.2015 after  lapse of  a period of more than two months from  loss of the key.  But the complainant did not  get the lock of the car changed.   Hence the complainant has failed to take precaution to  safeguardthe car and  is negligent in safeguarding the car.  Therefore,  the  complainant failed to prove that there is  any   unfair  trade practice or deficiency  in service  on the part of the  opposite party.Whereas  thecomplainant is himself  negligent  and failed to take precaution to safeguard  the car.He  violated   conditions  no. 1 and  4 of the insurance policy. Hence not entitled  for any  claim or compensation.

           

 In the light of above discussion and observations there is no merit in the complaint the same fails and is hereby dismissed.      

Order pronounced on : 08.08.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                       

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT