Delhi

New Delhi

CC/129/2015

Deepak Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Mar 2020

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.129/2015

 

Deepak Rai,

S/o Late P.J. Rai,

R/o A-9, 3^rd Floor, Kirti Nagar,

New  Delhi-15.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

M/s Bharti Axa  General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Mercantile House, 7^th Floor,

15, K.G. Marg,  Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

Opposite party

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is owner of Toyta Inova  bearing Registration  No.DL 12 CD 0850 duly insured with OP  for a period from 4.07.2014 to  3.07.2015 vide  Covernote No.33489147.  The said vehicle of the complainant got damaged on 26.7.2014  and on the advice of OP the vehicle was handed over to M/s Car Doctor for repairing on 31.7.2014, and the information regarding the same was given to OP who appointed the surveyor. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and the repairing work was started on the instruction of the surveyor.  On 9.8.2014, the complainant received call from Bhupesh Khanna, that his vehicle in question has been stolen from the premises of M/s Car Doctor.  An FIR bearing No.485 dt.9.8.14  was registered with the Police Station Hari Nagar, Delhi.   It is alleged by the complainant that claim form and all the documents were submitted to the OP for settling the claim.

2.     It is further stated that the complainant approached OP on several occasion, instead  of settling the claim, the officials of the OP Insurance Co. asked the complainant to sue M/s Car Doctor for the loss in question.  The complainant also sent a legal notice  dated  26.9..2014 but all in vain,  hence this complaint.

3.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  OP has filed its written statement, wherein it denied any deficiency in services on its part and stated that the present complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and is liable to be dismissed.  It is stated that claim was repudiated vide letter dt. 28.10.2014 as there was a gross negligence on the part of M/s Car Doctor, garage, who is responsible to safeguard the vehicle in question.   It is further alleged that there is a chance of collusion between complainant and M/s Car Doctor to get the claim from the OP Co.  It is stated that the  vehicle in question was stolen when it was in possession of M/s Car Doctor which leads to the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, hence the OP is not liable to pay the claim as the complainant has breached the policy conditions  and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit.  He has placed on record photocopy of covernote referred above, photocopy of FIR, photocopy of untraced report, copy of premium receipt and photocopy of repudiation letter dated 28.10.2014 in support of his case.

5.     On the other hand Ms Shivali Sharma  on behalf of OP has filed affidavit in evidences testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement, along with the copy of repudiation letter as well as the surveyor report in support of its case. All the parties have also filed their respective written submissions.

6.     We have carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence record of the case and have heard the submissions of complainant and Ld. Counsel for the OP.

7.     It is argued on behalf of complainant that the OP Insurance Co. is liable to indemnify him against the premium received.  It is further argued that the alleged vehicle was sent for repairing to the M/s Car Doctor on the direction of OP Co. The FIR was also registered and untraced report was also filed.  The OP Co. repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of assumption that there might be collusion between him and M/s Car Doctor which is unjustified and hence, he is entitled for the relief claim.

8.     On the other hand, it is argued by counsel for OP that claim was rightly repudiated, as there was a gross negligence on the part of M/s Car Doctor, garage, who is responsible to safeguard the vehicle in question.   It is further alleged that there is a chance of collusion between complainant and M/s Car Doctor to get the claim from the OP Co.  It is stated that the  vehicle in question was stolen when it was in possession of M/s Car Doctor which leads to the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, hence the OP is not liable to pay the claim as the complainant has breached the policy conditions  and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

9.     Admittedly,  there was a theft of the vehicle in question on 9.8.2014 from the premises of M/s Car Doctor.  The Proprietor of M/s Car Doctor himself admitted that his workshop is the authorized workshop of OP Co. and the cashless claim facility was also provided to this workshop by the OP.  It is not disputed that the OP Co. asked the complainant to get repair the alleged vehicle from M/s Car Doctor and the theft occurred  from the premises of M/s Car Doctor.  Hence it was held that the  M/s Car Doctor was responsible  for the safety of the vehicle in question which had been stolen from its workshop.  Nothing prevents the OP Co. to reimburse the complainant and then claiming the insured amount from M/s Car Doctor enforcing the liability of Bailee under the provision of contract Act.  but it cannot said that the claim lodged by the complainant arose out of contractual liability  between him and M/s Car Doctor. 

 

10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that repudiation of the claim of the complainant by OP on false and frivolous grounds amounts to deficiency in services on its part.  We however, made it clear that after reimbursing the complainant, it shall be open to the OP Co. to take such action , as may be open to it in law against the workshop from   where the vehicle in question was stolen. We therefore hold, OP liable for deficiency in services and direct as under:

 

1. Pay to the complainant sum of Rs.9,69,418/- along with 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 2.3.2015 till payment.

 

2. Pay to the complainant sum of Rs.20,000/- toward compensation for pain and  mental agony suffered by him which will include the cost of litigation.

 

 The order shall be complied  within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both the parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to R.R.

 

Announced in open Forum on 05/03/2020. 

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER