Delhi

South Delhi

CC/521/2012

MRS CHITRALEKHA KASHYAP - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

 

Case No. 521/2012

 

Mrs. Chitralekha Kashyap

17/277, Kalyanpuri,

New Delhi

 

….Complainant

Versus

 

National Insurance Company Limited

Through Its’ Manager

E-13, Main Market,

Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016

        ….Opposite Party

    

 Date of Institution    : 03.10.2012       

 Date of Order           : 28.01.2023      

 

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

 

ORDER

 

 

Member: U.K. Tyagi

 

1. Complainant has requested to pass an award directing National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to pay the insured amount of Rs.2,76,000/- alongwith the interest @12 per cent from the date of theft; (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation; (iii) to pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- etc.

 

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The complainant took the Motor Insurance Policy covering the risk of theft and damages for his car No. UP-14-AT-9677 from OP for the period 06.08.2010 to 05.08.2011 with IDV of Rs.2,76,000/-.  The said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person on 30.10.2010 when it was stated to be parked in parking.  That the complainant through his driver reported the incident to the Police and to this effect, an FIR was lodged No.526/2010 u/s 379 IPC at PS NOIDA Sector-39 UP.  The incident was also reported to the OP.  The complainant was approached by one person representing him surveyor and collected some documents.  Complainant visited the office of OP many times.  The OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the said vehicle was left unattended.  As such, OP is squarely liable for deficiency in services. Hence the complaint. 

3. OP, on the other hand, filed its reply, interalia raised preliminary objections.  No cause of action had arisen in favour of OP as contended by him.  The complaint is bad in law for misjoinder of parties and non-joinder of necessary parties.  OP also contended that as a general practice, the claim form is required to be submitted with necessary documents.  To this effect, the OP vide its letter dated 08.11.2011, 15.09.2012, 22.10.2012 and 11.12.2012 had sought certain necessary documents.  The said claim was repudiated by OP on 29.01.2013 on the ground of non-submission of documents related to the said vehicle from the complainant.  The OP further stated that the complainant deliberately suppressed material facts and is thus guilty of suppression of facts. Further, OP submitted that the complainant had taken different stands in complaint and FIR about the parking of the vehicle when the said vehicle was got stolen. As per FIR the vehicle had been stated to have been parked in front of HCL office whereas the parking of the said vehicle is also referred to in the parking lot.  The OP also averred that the complainant had not annexed any proof of any correspondence between complainant and OP and further no proof of visiting the office of OP in Kolkata is annexed.  The OP also contended that no deficiency in service was found against them.
4. Both the parties have filed written submission and evidence in affidavits Written statement is so record so is rejoinder.  Oral arguments were heard and concluded.

 

This Commission has gone into the entire material placed on record and due regard was given to the arguments.  The OP contended that the complainant did not submit the requisite documents which are essential for processing the claim. The OP wrote many letters to this effect. The complainant questioned the issuance of these letters and requested to provide any proof of issuance of these letters.

5. At the same time, the OP also maintained that the complainant is not consistent with regard to place of parking of the vehicle.  At one place, the vehicle is stated to be parked at the front parking of HCL office and the vehicle is shown parked in the parking lot. But the Commission feels that this stand of OP with respect to parking does not hold water.  As the vehicle was got stolen from the parking lot in front of office of HCL where this vehicle was engaged for commutation of the employee/visitors of HCL.  Whereas the complainant has made a reference of parking lot in its complaint. We feel that the stand of OP on account of mentioning the parking lot or parking in front of HCL does not make any difference. Both refers to the same parking lot.  It is also fact that the complainant has not shown any shred of evidence about the submission of documents.  We do feel that the claim cannot be processed in the absence of the necessary documents.  It should be bounden duty of the claimant to submit the requisite document for expedition of any claim.
6. After having considered the facts and circumstances in the case, this Commission is of the strong view that the complainant should submit necessary documents within 15 days  to OP and OP shall process the claim within two months thereafter failing which the OP shall pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, in addition of the claim amount.

File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.