Delhi

North East

CC/43/2020

Sh. Hari Dutt Joshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jul 2023

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.43/20

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Hari Dutt Joshi S/o Sh. Badri Dutt Joshi R/o A-29/ T, A Block Dilshad Garden, Shahdara Delhi 110095   Also at: B-1/63, A-3, Dilshad Extn-II DLF Bhopura Distt. Ghaziabad (U.P	Complainant
	Versus
1.                   2           3.         4.	M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., 301-308, Third Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No. 2, Road No. 44, Near M2K Cinema Rani Bagh, Pitampura New Delhi 110034 (Through its Principal Officer)   M/s  R.K Automobiles 467 & 483, Plot No. 2 Obrai Compound, Main G T Road Shahdara, Delhi 110095 (Through its Proprietor/partner)   HDFC Bank Opposite Paharganj Police Station Paharganj, New Delhi (Through its Branch Manager)   The Transport Department GNCTD, 5/9 Under Hill Road, Delhi 110054 (Through its Commissioner)	Opposite Parties

 

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

28.09.2020 24.05.2023 06.07.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the ConsumerProtection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a motor cycle from Opposite Party No. 2 vide registration No. DL 5SCC 4340 dated 29.01.2019 for a sum of Rs. 65,845/-. The said price was inclusive of cost of accessories, helmet, sale kit registration and road taxes, HP charges, smart care fee, insurance and GST. Opposite Party No. 2 had also facilitated and arranged finance of Rs. 51,425/- from Opposite Party No. 3 after fulfilling all the requisite formalities. The vehicle was also got insured by the Opposite Party No. 2 from Opposite Party No. 1 for IDVRs. 50,683/- and CPA Rs. 15 lacs for the period from 28.01.2019 to 27.01.2024. The aforesaid registration number was duly intimated to Opposite Party No. 3 to whom the vehicle was hypothecated and the loan was disbursed by Opposite Party No. 3 on behalf of the Complainant having been fully satisfied about the facts of the registration of the vehicle. After delivering the said vehicle, the Opposite Party No. 2 was legally and statutorily obliged to file necessary documents within 7 days before the Opposite Party No. 4 for issuing the Registration Smart Card. Opposite Party No. 2 had assured the Complainant that the said Registration Smart Card should be delivered to the Complainant as soon as it was received from the Opposite Party No. 4. Opposite Party No. 2 had provided the registration smart card to the Complainant. The said registration card shows the date of registration 31.01.2019 whereas the vehicle was delivered on 29.01.2019. These facts prove that Opposite Party No. 2 had violated the terms and conditions of the powers assigned to them by the Opposite Party No. 4 and had delivered and unregistered vehicle to the Complainant. On the very next day of the delivery, in the intervening night of 29.01.2019& 30.01.2019, the vehicle was found stolen and the Complainant informed the police. All the original documents including insurance cover and purchase invoice etc. were lying in the vehicle at the time of theft. An FIR No. 0488 dated 25.02.2019 was registered at PS Sahibabad u/s 379 IPC. Thereafter, the police filed an untraced report in the Hon'ble Court of Ld. CJM Ghaziabad which was duly accepted by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 25.07.2019. Complainant informed the Opposite Party No. 1 about the theft of the vehicle and submitted all the requisite documents and information. Opposite Party No. 1 had declined the claim vide letter dated 23.05.2019. The claim had been declined by Opposite Party No. 1 on the ground that the condition no. 39, Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. The Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties though his Counsel but Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 4 did not give any response. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 to pay jointly or severally the claim amount of the Complainant along with interest 12 % p.a. from the date of lodging the claim till the date of actual payment, to reimburse the amount of interest that has already been charged or would be charged by the Opposite Party No. 3 on the delayed payments, if any, toward EMIs of the loan or alternatively direct the Opposite Party No. 3 to waive off the said interest, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 55,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.03.2022.

 

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

3. Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the present complaint is totally devoid of merits and is not tenable in the eyes of law. It is stated that the motorcycle of the Complainant was insured with it from 28.01.2019 to 27.01.2020 with IDV of Rs. 50,683/-. It is further stated that after intimation regarding the theft of vehicle on 06.02.2017 an investigator was appointed to investigate the theft claim. It is stated that they asked the Complainant to submit the vehicular and other document for processing the claim. It is stated that on perusal of the registration certificate found that the vehicle was registered on 31.01.2019 i.e. one day after the theft of vehicle. It is stated that a letter was sent to the Complainant on 30.04.2019 intimating him regarding the violation of section 39 of Chapter IV of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as the vehicle was being used without registration certificate and the claim of the Complainant was repudiated on 23.05.2019. It is stated that the claim was reported after 6 days of theft and FIR was lodged nearly 25 days after the incident which was constitutes breach of terms and conditionof policy. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed.

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

6. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri. Rohit Udaiwal posted as Deputy Vice President-Auto Claimsa with Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Parties. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Parties.The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a motorcycle and the same was insured by Opposite Party No. 1.The said motorcycle was purchased on 29.01.2019 and the same wasstolen on the night intervening 29 and 30.01.2019. It is the case of the Complainant that his claim had been illegally rejected by Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that the FIR regarding the theft was lodged after delay. It is also its case that intimation to the insurance company was also given after delay. It is also the case of Opposite Party No. 1 that the bike of the Complainant was registered by the Transport Authorities on 31.01.2019 and the theft took place prior to the registration of the bikeand this is violation of the insurance policy as the bike is question is being used without registration and in violation of the condition of the insurance policy.
8. From the perusal of record it is revealed that the following are admitted:

1. The Complainant had purchased the bike in question on 29.01.2019.
2. The said bike of the Complainant was insured by Opposite Party No. 1 on 29.01.2019.
3. The said bike was stolen on the night intervening 29 and 30.01.2019.
4. FIR regarding the theft of the bike was registered in PS Sahibabad U.P.
5. The Police filed “untraced” report and the same was accepted by the Court.

9. The claim of the Complainant had been rejected merely on the ground that the bike in question was being driven in violation of the terms and condition of the insurance policy as the registration of the bike was done on 31.01.2019 i.e. after the theftofthe bike. The relevant part of the letter 23.05.2019 whereby the claim of the Complainant was rejected is reproduced under “No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other places unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carrier a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner.”
10. The perusal of the file shows that the bike of the Complainant was stolen during the night while it was in stationary condition. No evidence has been led by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the said bike was being driven in the manner as mentioned in letter 23.05.2019. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the claim of the Complainant has been wrongly rejected by the Opposite Party No.1.
11. Therefore, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50,683/- i.e. IDV value of the bike to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Admittedly this bike of the Complainant was financed by Opposite Party No.3 i.e. HDFC Bank, no evidence has been led by the Complainant that he had repaid the loan amount to the Opposite Party No. 3. Therefore, the Opposite Party No. 1 shall pay the above said amount to the Complainant after the Complainant satisfied the Opposite Party No. 1 by producing relevant documents that he had repaid the loan amount to the Opposite Party No. 3. Opposite Party No. 1 shall also pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. on account of litigation charges and harassment from the date of this order till recovery.

 

12.  Order announced on 06.07.2023.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)