CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.456/2009
MRS. USHA KAUSHIK,
W/O LATE SH. ANUP KAUSHIK,
R/O 4/187, SUBHASH NAGAR,
NEW DELHI
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
IFFCO HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR,
34 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI
………….. RESPONDENT
Date of Order:07.01.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that she bought a Maruti Esteem VXI car registered vide registration No.DL-3CAG 2860 and the same was insured by OP vide policy No.36604195, Manual Fol. No.535852, Certificate No.36601636 and cover note No.34357090 for the period from 10.02.2007 to 09.02.2008.
It is further stated that on 07.12.2007 at about 5.30 P.M., the said vehicle was stolen from Rajouri Garden Market. The said vehicle was searched personally and the same was found on 08.12.2007 from Dhobi Ghat in front of Kirti Nagar, New Delhi but its engine complete, dashboard, CD player, four stereo, seat, five wheel and tyre and original registration book was found missing. A case was registered by the police of PS Rajouri Garden vide FIR No.287/2007 u/s 379 IPC. The police of PS Rajouri Garden conducted the enquiry regarding the theft of parts of the vehicle but nothing could be recovered hence ultimately I.O. of the case has filed an untraced report of the parts of the vehicle and also filed final report u/s 173/Cr. P.C.
It is further stated that complainant filed an insurance claim before OP company for the said vehicle. The said vehicle was duly inspected by DD Motors office at B-8, Mayapuri, Phase-I, New Delhi and prepared an estimated bill dated 14.12.07.
Complainant received a letter dated 09.8.08 from Bhola Associates Advocates regarding investigation of theft claim of vehicle under cover note policy No.36604195 wherein advocate Mr. Sonu Bhola had made some queries and same were duly replied by the complainant. Again a reminder letter dated 25.8.08 was received by complainant from OP and same was duly replied by complainant. However, till date complainant could not get the insurance claim of the above said vehicle as the claim of complainant was rejected by OP. Complainant has requested for a claim of a total amount of Rs.7,83,000/- which includes cost of vehicle Rs.5,50,000/-, Rs.33,000 for litigation expenses and Rs.2 lakh for compensation alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. for the entire claimed amount.
OP in the reply has submitted that in fact the said vehicle was stolen on 27.11.07 from Raja Garden Market and the PCR van was informed on the same day by Mr. Vinit Grover(son-in-law of insured) from mobile of Ms. Rajni Kaushik(sister-in-law of insured). The said fact has been recorded under DD entry No.34 A of the P.S. Raja Garden. The said vehicle was taken by Mr. Vinit Grover to Raja Garden and not by the brother of insured i.e. Mr. Hitesh Sharma as claimed in the petition. Complainant has not disclosed these facts in the claim petition and falsely alleged that the said vehicle was stolen on 07.12.07 i.e. the day on which the FIR 287/2007 was filed by the brother of complainant.
It is further stated that OP vide letters dated 17.6.08, 09.7.08, 24.07.08 and 25.8.08 has requested complainant to furnish the required clarification, information/documents but complainant failed to respond to the queries of OP, raised by investigator. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
We have carefully gone through the record and heard Ld. Counsel for OP.
OP has specifically stated that in fact the vehicle was stolen on 27.11.07 from Raja Garden Market and the PCR van was informed on the same day by Mr. Vinit Grover(son-in-law of insured) from mobile of Ms. Rajni Kaushik(sister-in-law of insured). The said fact has been recorded under DD entry No.34 A of the P.S. Raja Garden. The said vehicle was taken by Mr. Vinit Grover to Raja Garden and not by the brother of insured i.e. Mr. Hitesh Sharma as claimed in the petition.
In fact the investigator has sent letters dated 17.06.08, 09.07.08, 24.07.08 and 25.08.08 to complainant seeking clarification whether the said vehicle was stolen on 27.11.07 or not, who has taken the vehicle on 27.11.07 to Raja Garden and as to why the date of theft has been mentioned in the FIR No.887/07 dated 08.12.07 however the said vehicle was already stolen on 27.11.07?
The contention of complainant that these letters were duly replied by him and also letter dated 25.8.08 was also replied, that fact has been denied by OP.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the said letter was replied by complainant, complainant’s reply regarding theft of the vehicle on 27.11.07 was evasive. It is only stated that on that day the vehicle was driven by her son-in-law Sh. Vineet Grover and he parked the vehicle in the Rajouri Garden Market as he could not find the place where he/we usually parked our vehicle. When he came back to the place where we usually parked our vehicle, he could not find the car and under shocked and panic he informed the police. Later on he recollected that he had parked the vehicle on the other side of the market and hence told the police about finding the car and came back home.
In fact plea taken by the complainant is nothing but an afterthought. Not a whisper has been made in the entire complaint regarding this. Nothing prevented complainant to state in the complaint that on 27.11.2008 Sh. Vinit Grover has parked the vehicle in the Rajouri Garden Market as he could not find the pale where he/we usually parked our vehicle. When he came back to the place where we usually parked our vehicle, he could not find the car and under shock and panic he informed the police.
It is significant to note that there cannot be a usual space for parking of the vehicle in any market. Generally vehicles are parked at the space available at that time and moreover when vehicle is not found at a particular place then instead of informing the police generally a person goes to the police station in order to find out whether the said vehicle has been towed away or not. In this case it was specifically stated by OP that the said vehicle was stolen on 27.11.07 from Raja Garden Market and the PCR van was informed on the same day by Mr. Vinit Grover(son-in-law of insured) from mobile of Ms. Rajni Kaushik(sister-in-law of insured). The said fact has been recorded under DD entry No.34 A of the P.S. Raja Garden. There is nothing on the record to show that Sh. Vinit Grover on finding the vehicle on 27.11.07 went to the police station and informed the police about that. Had he gone to the police station, police would have definitely recorded that the vehicle has been found and report was lodged by mistake.
Complainant has suppressed the real fact. It is evident form DD entry No.34 A dated 27.11.2007 of P.S. Raja Garden that the vehicle was stolen on 27.11.07 and lodging of FIR on 08.12.07 stating therein that the vehicle was stolen on 07.12.07 was false. Again this is stated that on 07.12.07 when the vehicle was found missing then her brother Sh. Hitesh Sharma informed the PCR. Later when it transpired that no information given to PCR, it was clarified by the complainant that PCR was not informed as her brother Sh. Hitesh Sharma went to the police station and informed the same to the police personally who told him to search the vehicle in the nearby area and when the vehicle was not found a complaint was lodged on 08.12.07. The entire story has been concocted by complainant suppressing real facts and not furnished true information to the insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
Keeping in view the above facts, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
