Delhi

East Delhi

CC/941/2015

SHALIENDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

14 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  941/15

 

Shri Shailender Kumar

S/o Shri Jagannah Yadav

R/I 433, Vinayak ower

Mahagun Puram

NH-24, Ghaziabad, UP                                                ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Branch Office at: 2^nd Floor,

Scope Minar (N, East Delhi,

Delhi – 110 092                                                                  …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 15.12.2015

Judgement Reserved on : 14.11.2017

Judgement Passed on: 15.11.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Shailender Kumar against  M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that mototcycle of the complainant, bearing no. UP-16-AH-9851 make TVS Apache, Model 2012, was insured with IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited vide policy no. 91208714 for a period from 23.02.2015 to 22.02.2016 of a sum of Rs. 59,187/-.  It was stolen by unknown person near Tanushree Farm, Ghaziabad on 29.03.2015 for which a police complaint was made vide general diary      no. 047 dated 29.03.2015 with P.S. Kavi Nagar and a FIR No. 356 dated 29.03.2015 under Section 379 of IPC was registered. 

          The complainant contacted OP and submitted his documents and statement on 06.04.2015.  After investigation, the police filed an untraced report on 14.06.2015.  He informed OP in respect of untraced report and he was shocked when he received a letter of 29.06.2015 refusing his claim under Condition No. 4 of the policy, stating that the complainant did not take proper safeguard for the loss to the vehicle.  Thus, he has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency on the part of OP claiming an amount of Rs. 59,187/-, insured amount; Rs. 50,000/- compensation towards physical, mental and financial loss and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.       In the reply, M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) have taken various objections such as territorial jurisdiction as the policy was issued from Noida, the theft took place at Ghaziabad, thus, no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Even on merits, they have stated that repudiation of the claim was justified under Condition No. 4 of the policy as the insured was to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle etc. etc.

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein she has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted her pleas.

5.       In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has relied upon the documents such as copy of driving license of the complainant (Ex.CW1/1), copy of RC of motorcycle (Ex.CW1/2), copy of Insurance policy (Ex.CW1/3), copy of FIR (Ex.CW1/4 colly.), copy of final report (Ex.CW1/5), copy of No Claim letter dated 29.06.2015 from Insurance Company (Ex.CW1/6) and copy of order dated 12.09.2015 of the Hon’ble CJM, Ghaziabad (Ex.CW1/7).

          In defence, OP have examined Shri Anil Kumar Chadha, duly constituted attorney for the insurance company, who also deposed on oath.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of repudiation letter (Ex.OP-1/1), copies of survey report and complainant’s statement (Ex.OP-1/2) and (Ex.OP-1/3) and copy of relevant pages of policy schedule (Ex.OP-1/4).  

5.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for OP as the complainant did not appear to argue.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that no jurisdiction of this Forum was made out as the policy was issued from Noida office.  Not only that, no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum as the theft took place at Ghaziabad. 

          Admittedly, the policy has been issued from Noida, UP.  The theft has taken place at Ghaziabad.  Thus, neither the policy has been issued from Delhi nor any cause of action has arisen in Delhi.  That being so, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  Hence, the complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.   

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member   

           

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President