Delhi

New Delhi

CC/721/2012

Dr. Sarkita Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Mar 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/721/12                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Dr. Sarika Sharma,

B-381/A1, Gali no.18,

Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

M/s. Future Genarali India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

303-310, 3^rd fl, Kailash Building,

26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001

Also at:

M/s. Future Genarali India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

001, Trade Plaza, 414 Veer Sawarkar Marg,

Prabhadevi, Dada West-400025 Mumbai

                                         ……..OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

Member: S.R Chaudhary

 

The Complainant had insured his vehicle with OP for car bearing no.DL2CR7664 for covering the period 30.06.10 to 29.06.11 as per Exh.C1 & C2. The complainant daughter working as Asst. Professor had parked said vehicle in front of law faculty at 11:30 AM and when she returned back, the vehicle was missing consequently police was called, FIR lodged on 05.03.11 & intimation was given same day as per Exh.C3. The said car was recovered by Prasant Vihar Police station in totally damaged condition on 06.04.11 and it was brought to P.S Maurice Nagar by investigation officer ASI Sh. Jai Kiran as per police recovery report as per Exh.C4. The said vehicle was inspected and surveyor was appointed Mr. Anil Bansal to assess this loss damaged to car. After taking photograph the damaged car was sent to workshop at Kingsway Camp, The workshop in charge immediately informed complainant that the tyre and Rim of left rear side had been replaced with Maruti 800 car and same was conveyed to OP simultaneously. Immediately surveyor took the photograph fresh accident mark bonnet, driver side as well as wheel and small crack in front of glass. Despite several reminder/intimation given to surveyor & OP but none appeared before workshop to make payments to workshop bill. Ultimately complainant paid Rs.26,223.75/- to workshop as per Exh.C5 to C10. Suddenly surveyor came to complainant on 15.06.11 to collect the documents but he refused to pay labor charges. Complainant handed over all relevant documents to surveyor except police recovery certificate which under custody of ASI P.S Maurice Nagar police recovery certificate was also given to OP on 16.08.11 through courier to pass the claim as early as practicable. OP sent a cheque of Rs.1,400/- vide  cheque bearing no.537488 dated 27.09.11 drawn on HDFC bank to the complainant, instead of  Rs.26,223.75/- as per Exh.11. Complainant did not encash the cheque and sent a letter to OP on 03.10.11 as per Exh.12. Thus complaint was filed but OP proceeded exparte on 04.02.13 but OP was allowed to file W.S on 01.05.13.

The reply of OP in Para1 does not dispute over insurance coverage and theft of vehicle. He has also admitted that surveyor was appointed and total assessment of loss was Rs.1,400/- instead Rs.26,223.75/- bills raised by OP to rectify the defects. Workshop was authorized OP where defects of car was removed and all relevant documents of workshop was handed over to surveyor along with police recovery certificate. OP has taken a shelter of legal Sanctity of Section 64M of Insurance Act to decline the genuine claim, claimed by workshop who rectify defects of stolen car recovered dully photograph taken before police officials at Workshop which is clear case of deficiency breach of contract and also decline the police report as well. It is clear case of mischief of OP who deliberately repudiated the claim without applying legal application of mind/ moral responsibility to abide by the contract which appears to sole deficiency of OP.

Keeping this in view, OP is directed to pay Rs.26,233/- along with 9% interest from date of claim till realization and we also award Rs.25, 000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation charges.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 02.03.2015.

 

 

                   

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER