Delhi

North East

CC/104/2023

Sh. Ram Bhajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Universal Sompo General insurance co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Mar 2024

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.104/23

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Ram Bhajan S/o Sh. Har Vilas Rathore, R/o H.No. C 251, Radha Vihar Saboli,Mandoli,Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
	Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( Through its Principal Officer) Policy Issuing Address 1, Nelson Mandela Road Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070   Also at:- 3rd Floor, Vishal Bhawan 95, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019	Opposite Party

 

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

21.04.23 03.01.24 01.03.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

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

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant  had purchased a car EECO bearing Registration No. DL 5CP 4558, Engine No. G12BN554999, chassis No. MA3ERLFIS005777617, Key No. 52431, Make Maruti, Color Glistening Grey from M/s TR Sawhey Motors Pvt. Ltd. vide their invoice no. A G 7343 dated 29.12.17 for Rs. 4,64,196/- plus other charges for Rs. 12,806/-. The Complainant had taken a part amount as loan                                                                          from AU Small finance Bank Ltd. which has duly been repaid back by the Complainant in 24 EMIs of Rs. 14,265/- each and the said bank has duly issued an NOC to this effect for removal of hypothecation on the RC. The said vehicle of Complainant got insured by Opposite Party vide policy bearing no. 2311/62361029/00/000 covering the period from 30.12.20 to 29.12.21. On 12.11.21 said vehicle of Complainant got stolen and Complainant lodged FIR bearing no. 1003/2021 and immediately intimated to Opposite Party and lodged claim with Opposite Party vide claim no. CL21173363. Thereafter the Opposite Party deputed one M/s Surak Enterprises as the surveyor who had taken copy of various documents from Complainant and also taken signature on blank paper which might have been misused by surveyor or Opposite Party. It is stated that as per requirement of surveyor Complainant filed letter dated 22.11.21 before ld. MLO, NEZ, Loni Road, Delhi requesting to keep the file of the stolen vehicle in safe custody. Thereafter, police filed its closure report before Hon’ble court of ld. Civil Judge (FTC), Ghaziabad and the same was duly accepted by court vide order dated 14.05.22 in Misc. case No. 452/22. The Complainant made several calls and requested Opposite Party to pay the insurance claim but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for the insurance claim of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 2,59,762/-  with past, pende-lite and future interest @ 15 % p.a. from the date of filing the claim. Complainant has also prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 55,000/- towards mental harassment.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party despite service of notice to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.09.23.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

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

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant.The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. The Opposite Party did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
5. In view of the above, the complaint is allowed.  The Opposite Party is directed to pay the IDV value of the vehicle in question of Rs. 2,59,762/-  with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery to the Complainant against the receipt of the letter of subrogation duly notarized from the Complainant.  The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant  on account of litigation expenses and mental harassment along with interest@ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
6. Order announced on 01.03.24.

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)