DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 319/2018

QUORUM:

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this order the Commission would dispose off the complaint filed by the Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP in not reimbursing the claim w.r.t. stolen vehicle.      

1. It is interalia stated by the complainant that he purchased a vehicle for an amount of Rs.91,172/- on 07.06.2017 and got the same       insured from respondent which was valid from 07.06.2017 to 06.05.2018 but on the intervening night of 24.09.2017 when his scooter was parked in front of his house the same was stolen and    on 25.09.2017 in the morning itself he made a call to the Police and informed about the said incident where after the Police reached the spot at 08:40 AM and recorded the statement of complainant and told him to register the FIR and then complainant visited the PS Jagatpuri for lodging the FIR but Police did not register the FIR by stating that investigation is already on but the Police registered the FIR only on 01.10.2017.  The complainant had also informed the OP but it did not take the complaint of the complainant on the ground that FIR has not been registered by them and told that he should come to the insurance company with the copy of the FIR and after lapse of one month the complainant visited on 02.11.2017 and then he was told that the appointment of surveyor is under process.  An external surveyor, gave a checklist to the complainant on 09.11.2017 for the assessment of claim in question and as per the requirement of surveyor complainant submitted all the required documents on 27.11.2017 to him.  Further documents were also demanded on 20.12.2017 which were also supplied.  On 09.01.2018 the OP sought clarification w.r.t. delay of 5 days in reporting to Police and delay of 37 days in informing the Insurance Co. whereafter he met the concerned officer and clarified that the delay took only on account of police mechanism and surveyor was to be appointed by the company but despite having observed all such facts, the OP unlawfully and illegally rejected the claim of the complainant on 12.02.2018 on the ground of delay in intimation of 6 days to the police and 38 days of the police.  The OP have not complied with the settle principal of law as well as of IRDA and its circulars on dated 20.09.2011 where it is specifically mentioned that decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logics and valid grounds and IRDA again issued a circular dated 28.01.2018 thereby asking the companies to comply with the circular but OP did not reimburse the claim and as such he filed the present complaint against OP seeking direction that OP be directed to pay Rs.48,613/- i.e. the IDV of the Scooter, with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation charges. 
2. The OP has filed its reply interalia justifying the rejection basically on the ground that there was a delay in informing the insurance policy of about 38 days and even FIR was not registered immediately after the incidence and apart from that usually preliminary objection had been taken that complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands, there is no cause of action to file the present complaint, the complainant intends to extract legal money from the OP, sufficient care was not taken by complainant to guard his vehicle against theft, the complaint is vague and baseless and even otherwise there was delay in information to the police. 
3. On merits the Policy, the IDV, the Insured Value, loss of vehicle, appointment of surveyor are not denied specifically. 
4. Complainant has filed Rejoinder and his own evidence by way of affidavit.   
5. The OP has filed the evidence of Sh. Rohan Mishra, Manager Legal. 
6. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 
7. Once the vehicle has been stolen and surveyor has been appointed who has not smelled any foul play, the fact of policy/premium/IDV/theft of the vehicle stands proved.  The only ground for rejecting the claim is delay in informing the police and delay in informing the Insurance Company.    

The Hon’ble NCDRC in New India Assurances Ltd. V/s Narayan Prasad II (2006) CPJ 144 NC has given guidelines for settling the claim on non standard basis in cases where there is some irregularity w.r.t. any terms and conditions which are as follows:   

Non- standard claims following types of claims shall be considered as non-standard and shall be settled as indicated below after recording the reasons: 

Keeping in view that fact and also keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC, on the same lines, it is now settled proposition of law that merely on the ground of delay in information, the Insurance Company cannot reject the claim in toto.  Therefore, the deficiency on the part of complainant OP stands proved when it rejected the claim in toto and it should have passed the claim on Non standard basis.  Accordingly, the Commission hereby directs the OP as follows:

• OP is directed to reimburse 75% of the IDV i.e. Rs.36,459.75/-  (75% of Rs.48,613/-) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of rejecting the claim i.e 12.02.2018 to the complainant and complaint of the complainant is allowed.   
• OP would also pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant and Rs.5000/- towards legal expenses. 

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the OP would pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the entire amount.      

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 17.01.2024.