DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 70/2021

Date of Institution: 03.02.2021

Judgment Reserved on: 14.03.2024

Judgment Passed on: 14.03.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Judgment By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

JUDGMENT

By the present judgment, the commission is disposing off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency of service in repudiating, his insurance claim of his stolen vehicle.

1. It is the case of the complainant that he is the registered owner of two wheeler bearing registration number DL – 13, SX – 9054, insured with OP1 with a valid insurance policy for five years valid up to 18.12.2023, for an IDV of Rs. 51,172/- . Complainant submits that on 01.03.2019 the said vehicle was stolen and he immediately lodged a report at 100 number and a PCR van came at the spot and the statement of the complainant was recorded, however, no necessary action was taken and no FIR was registered by them. On 06.03.2019, observing the inaction from the police, the complainant lodged a complaint on the official website of the Delhi police and the same was culminated into FIR, being FIR number 008,146/2019 under section 379 IPC at PS Jagatpuri Delhi. The police officials have filed untraced report before the concerned court, which was accepted by the Ld court. The complainant has filed claim before the OP who has declined the claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 01.08.2019 on the ground that there is five days delay in lodging the FIR and in giving intimation to the OP.  Complainant submits that he was very prompt to report the matter to the police as soon as he got the information of theft but FIR was not registered by the police, because of which he had to register his FIR through website. Complainant further submits that OP has failed to consider that there is no delay on the part of the complainant and OP was under legal obligation to disburse the claim of the complainant as promised, for he was having valid insurance policy and declining his genuine claim on the false and frivolous ground amounts to deficiency of service on its part as well as unethical practice because of which he has suffered mental harassment, financial loss and agony for which he is entitled to be compensated by the OP along with the claim amount of his insurance. A legal notice dated 13.02.2020 remained unanswered by OP despite its services.
2. Upon notice OP failed to file its reply within statutory period because of which he was formally proceeded ex-parte on 03.11.2022. An application was filed by the OP under section 151CPC read with section 40 of CPC for review of the ex-parte order which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2023.
3. Complainant has filed his ex-parte evidence. In support of his claim he has filed copy of the insurance certificate, copy of FIR, copy of untraced report, copy of registration certificate, copy of legal notice, copy of claim application, copy of NOC of his bank along with certain other documents.
4. Since the reply filed by the OP was not to be read for the purpose of its defence, the allegations put forth by the complainant remained unrebutted.
5. The commission has heard the arguments and perused the documents placed on record by the complainant, which establish that the complainant was having valid insurance policy, the vehicle was stolen on 01.03.2019 and the same remain untraced and an untraced  report was filed by the police, which was accepted by the court vide its order dated 30.01.2020. The policy on record shows that the vehicle was stolen during the validity period of the policy which was valid till 18.12.2023, with IDV of Rs.51,172/-. The FIR dated 06.03.2019, mention the date of occurrence of the theft on 01.03.2019. the repudiation letter on record dated 01.08.2019 has mentioned that the claim was intimated to the insurer on 20.03.2019, i.e after 19 days of delay, which is the violation of the terms and conditions of policy which requires that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident, damage or theft in the event of any claim. The repudiation letter has also mentioned that FIR w.r.t. the stolen vehicle was lodged after five days of the theft of the vehicle which is also in volition of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The FIR should have been immediately lodged after the theft, as the policy terms clearly states that in case of the theft or criminal act, which may be the subject of the claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the police.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘AmalenduSahu versus Oriental Insurance Co Ltd’, II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC), has held that even in case there, there is a some breach of warranty/conditions of the policy, an amount up to 75% of the admissible claim can be agreed to.
7. National Commission in New India Assurances Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad II (2006) CPJ 144 NC has given guidelines for settling the claim on non – standard basis”

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

8. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the view that OP is deficient in its service in repudiating the claim of the complainant in toto and the claim of the complainant can be allowed on non-standard basis.
9. Therefore OP1 is directed to pay to the complainant, 75% of the IDV Rs.  51,172 = Rs. 38,379/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim, ie 01.08.2019, a compensation of Rs.20,000/- , for causing him harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/-  towards the litigation cost. The above stated amount be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order of this commission, failing which the entire amount i.e. Rs. 38,379  +20,000+10,000 = Rs.68379 shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of reputation of the claim i.e.  01.08.2019 till it’s realisation by the complainant.
10. The file be consigned to record after giving a copy of the order to the parties in terms of the CPA

Announced on 14.03.2024.