Delhi

North East

CC/45/2018

Mohd. Irshad - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shiva Motors & Ors - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 45/2018

 

In the matter of:

 

1. Mohd. Irshad

      S/o Mohd. Sharif

      R/o:  H.No. A-62,Gali No.2,

     New Mustafabad, Delhi-110094                                             Complainant

                                                                                                 

	Versus

           1.   M/S Shiva Motors

   E-11 Main 100 Futa Road,

West Jyoti Nagar,Delhi-110094                                   Opposite Party No.1

 

                                                                                              

2. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

F-25, Ist Floor, Preet Vihar,

                 Vikas Marg, Delhi- 110092                                           Opposite Party No.2

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:                ORDER RESERVED ON:                          DATE OF ORDER:

08.03.2018 29.07.2022 19.09.2022

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President.

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member.

 

ORDER

 

     Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

     Case of Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the pleadings is that the Complainant is the owner of the Motor cycle bearing registration no. DL-5SAV-3957, the said vehicle was purchased from Opposite Party No.1 and was insured by Opposite Party No. 2 vide policy no. 064001/0120049110/000000/00.  The said policy was valid from 29.07.16 to 28.07.16. The Complainant stated that the vehicle in question was stolen on 08.11.16. The Complainant went to P.S. Nand Nagri for filing an FIR where he was suggested to lodge online FIR. The Complainant inadvertently filed a Lost Report bearing no.1067577/2016 on 09.11.16 instead of filing an E-FIR. The Complainant submitted all his documents and keys for getting the claim of the vehicle in question. On 12.02.17, the officials of Opposite Party contacted the Complainant and stated that they rejected the claim by stating that the Complainant wrongly lodged a Lost Report instead of an FIR. On 18.02.17, he visited the P.S. Nand Nagri and stating the entire incident but the officials of P.S refused to accept his application regarding filing an FIR. The Complainant filed an application before Hon’ble court for registration of an FIR and thereafter an E-FIR was registered on 25.06.17. The Complainant stated that in the last week of October the Complainant visited the Opposite Party office with FIR and untrace report but his claim was again rejected by Opposite Party stating the reasons in letter dated 27.09.17. The Complainant stated that he had also sent legal notice to Opposite Party on 09.11.17 but the Opposite Party did not disburse the claim of the Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.2.The Complainant has prayed for settlement of his claim.  He has also prayed for Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of metal harassment.
2. Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 10.12.18.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

3. Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No.2 submitted that after receiving the information from the Complainant regarding the loss of his vehicle one independent surveyor was appointed who submitted his report dated 23.01.17. As per report of the surveyor, there was contradiction regarding the date of the theft of the vehicle. The Complainant has given wrong information regarding the date of the theft of the vehicle. It is alleged that the Complainant did not submit the requisite document despite being demanded by the Opposite Party No.2. The key of the stolen vehicle was also not submitted. It is admitted that the vehicle in question was insured by Opposite Party No.2. It is prayed that he complaint be dismissed.

 

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Opposite Party No.2

 

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the Complainant has denied the objections raised by the Opposite Party No.2 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint. The Complainant has relied upon the Lost Report of the vehicle, complaints to the SHO and DCP. He has filed the copy of the E-FIR and untrace report.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of                              Shri Amit Chawla, Chief Manager of Opposite Party No.2, having its office at TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. Unit nos. 810-816, 8^th floor, World Trade Tower, Plot No. C-001, Sector 16, Noida-201301, U.P. 110095 wherein the averments made in the written statement have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7.  We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. The case of the Complainant is that his bike was stolen. He lodged E-FIR and after investigation the police submitted the “untraced Report”. It is his case that his claim was wrongly rejected by the Opposite Party No.2. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the Complainant did not hand over the set of keys to the Opposite Party No.2 and also he did not submit the requisite document and for this reason his claim was rejected.
8. The Complainant has lodged the FIR regarding the theft of his vehicle. The police has filed untraced report in the court after conducting the investigation. This shows that vehicle of the Complainant was stolen and it could not be recovered. As the vehicle of the Complainant was insured at the time of theft so he is entitled to receive claim from the Opposite Party No.2.
9. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay Rs. 79,097/-(IDV value of the Bike) along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Party No.2 shall also pay       Rs. 10,000/-  to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.
10.  Order announced on 19.09.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)                                                            (Surinder Kumar Sharma)      

       (Member)                                                                                  (President)