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.62/2012

MS RITU KHANNA

W/O SH. RAJAN KHANNA

R/O B-2/22, 2^ND FLOOR, JANAK PURI,

DELHI-110058

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

VS.

M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,

LOTUS TOWERS, 1^ST FLOOR, COMMUNITY CENTRE,

NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI-110025

      …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                             Date of Order:10.08.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that her Santro car was duly insured with OP for the period 03.02.11 to 02.02.12.  The car was given by complainant to her husband’s friend namely Prithvi Pal Singh for some time for his personal use.  On 03.06.11 at about 8 PM, Sh. Prithvi Pal Singh parked the vehicle in front of his residence B-270, 1^st floor, Derawal Nagar, New Delhi and on the next day morning i.e. 04.06.11 at about 8.30 A.M., he found that the said vehicle was missing.  He searched the said vehicle in nearby locality and ultimately lodged a report at PS Model Town vide FIR 250/11 dated 04.06.11 u/s 379 IPC.  The complainant immediately informed OP about the theft of the said vehicle and after four days i.e. on 08.06.11, an executive of OP visited the complainant and demanded the relevant papers which were furnished and the enquiry made by the said person was duly replied.  Ultimately the case was sent as untraced and the claim was not settled.  OP vide letter dated 31.10.11 sought certain information which was furnished vide letter dated 01.11.11.  Certain information was sought vide letter dated 28.11.11 which was again furnished however, the claim was not settled.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is prayed that OP be directed to release the claim of the complainant of Rs.3 lakhs as the cost of the vehicle and also pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh for compensation and Rs.25,000/- for expenses.

OP in the reply has not disputed that the vehicle in question was duly insured.  It is not in dispute that FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle was duly lodged.  In fact OP in its reply took the plea that the investigator during investigation found that insured vehicle was being used by one Mr. Prithvi Pal Singh and he was paying EMI for the same to complainant.  Complainant in her statement to the investigator had stated that Mr. Prithvi Pal Singh was using the insured vehicle since March 2010 whereas Mr. Prithvi Pal Singh in his statement has stated that he was using the vehicle since May 2011.

It is further stated in reply that in FIR Mr. Prithvi Pal Singh has stated that RC of the insured vehicle was also stolen alongwith the vehicle.  However, during investigation it came to the light that Mr. Prithvi Pal Singh had pledged RC to one Mr. Puneet and has taken some money from him.  Also certain clarification was sought from complainant as Prithvi Pal Singh being the owner of one Maruti car has also lodged a report regarding theft of car bearing TL 2CA 3853 at PS Punjabi Bagh showing that vehicle stolen while the same parked outside the house of the complainant in present case.  It is stated that the complainant was not coming up with the truth and was suppressing the relevant facts and for that reason the claim was not finalized by OP as the information was not furnished.  It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

We have carefully perused the record and gone through the written submission of the parties.

It is not in dispute that the car in question was duly insured with OP and FIR was lodged regarding the theft of the car immediately after the vehicle was stolen.  It is also a fact that untraced report was field by the police.  It does not matter that Mr. Prithvi Pal Singh has lodged a FIR in respect of his car which was stolen from outside the house of complainant.  So far as report of investigator regarding the pledging of the RC of the car to Mr. Puneet is concerned, no such report has been placed on record. Though Mr. Mohd. Azhar Wasi who has filed his affidavit on behalf of OP stated that the investigator report is placed as exhibit R-1.  In fact the documents exhibited as R-1 to R-4 were never furnished. 

There was no justification in not deciding the claim.  Complainant has responded to all the letters which were sent to her.  Complainant has specifically stated that she is not concerned with the Maruti car of Mr. Prithvi Pal Singh and it is for the insurance company to take appropriate steps against Mr. Prithvi Pal Singh in respect of that car.  There was no justification in withholding the claim.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

            OP is directed to refund Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from filing of the complaint.  OP is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Let the order be complied 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)                     (RITU GARODIA)                        (A.S. YADAV)

        MEMBER                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT