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.865/2008

SH. MUKESH KUMAR

S/O SH. RAMESHWAR DAYAL,

R/O H.NO.242, BLOCK-D,

HARSH VIHAR, DELHI-110093

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

IFFCO HOUSE, 3^RD FLOOR, 34, NEHRU PLACE,

NEW DELHI-110019

                                                …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                    Date of Order: 03.06.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

It is not in dispute that motorcycle of the complainant was duly insured with OP for the period of 16.11.2007 to 15.11.2008 with IDV of Rs.43,938/-.  The case of the complainant is that on 07.12.2007, he went to his sister’s house at Loni Road and parked his motorcycle, however the same was stolen by some unknown person.  An FIR to that effect was lodged on 08.12.2007, however, the motorcycle was not found and an untraced report was filed.  Complainant informed OP about the theft of the motorcycle.  Despite writing letters to OP, complainant has not received any reply from OP regarding his claim. Ultimately this complaint has been filed.

OP in the reply stated that in fact complainant has left the key in the motorcycle and violated the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is stated that M/s D.C. Insurance Services was appointed as Investigator in this matter and on the basis of their report, the claim has been repudiated.  In the written statement, OP has referred to clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the policy which provides as under:-

“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 insured or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured.  In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle insured be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.”

It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

The claim has been repudiated solely on the ground that the complainant has left the key in the motorcycle and thereby he has not taken adequate steps to safeguard the motorcycle and violated clause 5 of the policy.  First of all, OP has not placed the aforesaid policy containing the terms and conditions of the policy on record.  OP has not placed anything on record to show that these terms and conditions of the policy were ever brought to the notice of the complainant and were got duly signed by him.  Secondly, we failed to understand that on what basis OP has stated that complainant has left the key in the motorcycle.  Complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that the motorcycle was duly locked by him.  In fact OP has not placed the report of Investigator on the record.  OP has not sent any letter of repudiation to the complainant.  OP has not placed the letter of repudiation on record.  Though Mr. P.J. Pradhan, Vice President of the OP filed affidavit where he stated that the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 19.06.2008 and copy of the same is exhibit ‘B’ but no such copy is placed on record.  Even complainant has nowhere stated in his complaint that he has received  any letter of repudiation.  That is why he has not placed any letter of repudiation on the record.

It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

OP is directed to pay IDV of the vehicle insured i.e. Rs.43,938/- to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

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