Delhi

New Delhi

CC/562/2017

Manjeet Sen - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. National Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

08 May 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC.562/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Manjeet Sen

S/o Sh. Jai Narayan

R/o RZ-167A, X-Block,

New Roshanpura, Najafgarh,

South West, Delhi – 110043.                                        ….Complainant

VERSUS

 

M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Divisional Office-IV, Hero Motor Corp

N-1, BMC House, Connaught Place,

New Delhi – 110001.                                                     ....Opposite Party

 

Quorum:

 

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Mr. Bariq Ahmad, Member

Mr. Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

                                                                                                                           Date of Institution:- 06.12.2017                                                                                                                                                                            Date of Order          :-  08.05.2023

 

ORDER

 

Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant got his motorcycle insured from the opposite  party . The complainant alleges that his motorcycle was stolen and since it was insured he approached to the opposite party but it denied the claim on false and frivolous grounds just to harass and to delay the claim of the complainant. The complainant, therefore, approached this Commission. It is stated that the dispute between the complainant and opposite party is fully covered and falls within the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
2. The case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of Motorcycle bearing Regn. No. DL-9S-BG-7579 which was stolen on 25.02.2017 from Gurgaon, Haryana and an FIR was registered to the said effect in the Police Station Gurgaon Sadar vide FIR No.0280 dated 26.02.2017.  This information was given to the Police Control Room at no. 100 on 25.02.2017.  To establish his ownership and having made complaint for theft, he has filed copy of the purchase bill of the motorcycle and copy of the report dated 18.04.2017 received under RTI from the Police Control Room, Gurugram. It is also established that the above said motorcycle of the complainant was duly insured with the opposite party vide Policy No.39010231166204204044  valid  w.e.f. 15.01.2017 till 14.01.2018.
3. On having stolen the motorcycle,  the complainant lodged a claim with the opposite party being the insurer of the said vehicle but the same was  rejected by the opposite party vide its letter dated 07.04.2017 bearing No.HHH/16/2844 on the ground that the FIR has been registered on 26.02.2017 and no call was made at no.100.  Further, it has been alleged in the said reply that the keys provided by the complainant do not seems to be genuine as one key is duplicate and the other is unused and has alleged that the same is in violation of condition no.4 of the insurance policy.  Copy of the letter dated 07.04.20217 received from the opposite party is also placed on record.
4. The complainant alleges that all the averments made in the above said rejection letter of claim are false, frivolous, wrong and clearly reflects the malafide on the part of the insurance company/opposite party and the claim has been rejected in a mechanical manner.
5. It is further submitted by the complainant that on 25.02.2017, a call was made at Police Control Room and the same has been confirmed by the police in response to the RTI application that from mobile No.7988337351 a complaint about the theft of motorcycle Splender Plus Regn. No.DL-9S-BG-7579 from Plot No.16, Sector-32, Gurugram, Haryana was made and thereafter on the very next day, an FIR was registered with the police as mentioned above.
6. As regard the keys, the complainant states that the keys given to the insurance company by the complainant were both original and genuine and it appears that the officials of the opposite party have malafidely changed the keys of the stolen motorcyle as the complainant has returned both the keys in original to the officials of the opposite party who visited at the residence of the opposite party for the purposes of verification and collection of keys of the vehicle.
7. It is also alleged on non-receipt of claim, the complainant served a legal demand notice dated 24.06.2017 (posted on 29.06.2017) upon the opposite party through speed post.  In the said notice, the opposite party was directed to pay the insured amount of the above said stolen motorcycle within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice. The notice was duly served upon the opposite party.  Upon receipt of the legal notice, the opposite party duly replied it but as per the complainant, the allegations made therein are false and frivolous. Thus, it is submitted that the opposite party is liable and responsible to release the insured amount to the complaint, but the aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in services, which caused wrongful gain to the opposite party and wrongful loss to the complainant. The complainant is facing difficulties in his day to day movement in the absence of a vehicle. Had the insurance company released the amount of insurance, the complainant would have purchased a new motorcycle but he has to spend an amount of Rs.200/- per day for travelling from his house to working place. And as such the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant adequately. The complainant is also suffering mental tension, trauma, harassment and financial losses at the hands of the opposite party. The opposite party by its abovesaid conduct made itself liable to pay damages to the complainant for the mental harassment, agony, trauma and financial losses, which cannot be calculated in terms of money but still same are quantified  to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only).
8. Hence the present complaint before this Commission.
9. In response to the notice of this complaint, the opposite party has vehemently opposed the prayers of the complaint mainly on the ground that the complainant has violated the Clause 1 of the policy by not informing the respondent about the theft immediately whereas as per Condition No. 4 of the insurance policy, in the event of any claim, immediate intimation in writing is to be given to the Insurance Company. It is submitted by the opposite party that in view of Clause no.1 of the policy, the opposite party is entitled to repudiate the claim of the complainant. It is also alleged that keys provided by insurance company were genuine, one key was duplicate and another unused, which was breach of condition 4 of the policy. The complainant stated in the rejoinder that both key given to the insurance company were original.
10. It is to be noted that some of the facts which are admitted are that complainant had taken the policy of the vehicle in question from OP and the theft of the vehicle took place during the continuance of the said policy. The theft of vehicle was also not denied neither the claim was repudiated on the ground that theft was not genuine.

 

11. Ld. Counsel for Complainant contended that the claim was repudiated arbitrarily Ld. Counsel for OP however submitted that insurance had repudiated the claim under the terms and condition 4 of the Policy, as insured failed to inform the insurance company immediately after the occurrence, repudiation is justified and the complaint be dismissed.
12. It is to be noted it is the case of Complainant that vehicle was stolen on 25.02.2017 by unknown person and information to police was given on 25.02.2017 itself and FIR was registered on 26.02.2017. which has been established from Annexure-C which is report dated 18.04.2017 received under RTI from Police Control Room, Gurugram.
13.  It is to be noted Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Civil Appeal No. 653/2020 SLP(C) 24370/15 titled Gurshinder singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. and another

“That in case of theft insurance company or a Surveyor would have a     limited role. It is the police who on filing of FIR of insured will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovery the vehicle per contra the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most could ascertain the factum of theft.  In the event the police recovers the vehicle and returns it to the insured, there would be no occasion to lodge a claim for compensation on account of the policy. It is only when the police is not in a position to trace the vehicle and final report is lodged by police that vehicle is not traced the insured would be entitled to lodge a claim for compensation. The survey of insurance company is also required to enquire whether the claim of theft is genuine or not. If the surveyor finds  that claim of theft is genuine then coupled with registration of  FIR it would be conclusive proof of the vehicle being stolen.

14. Thus it has been proved that complainant registered a complaint on 25.02.2017 i.e. the day when theft took place.  On the next very date i.e. 26.02.2017, the aforesaid information made over Police Call No. 100 was converted into an FIR.  This fact has not been denied by the opposite party in its written statement.
15. As regards the contention of OP that complainant was negligent in not taking proper safeguard of the vehicle, it is to be noted that it was not the case of OP that vehicle was left unlocked. We accordingly reject the said contention. It is also to be noted that OP was informed of theft on 28.02.2017. Thus there was no inordinate delay in informing the OP, in our view we accordingly hold that OP/National Insurance Company Ltd. guilty of deficiency of service. We thus hold that the repudiation of complaint by OP-1 was unjustified. In the said facts and circumstances we hold OP liable to pay the insured declared value of the vehicle Rs. 47,054/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Fifty Four) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint within 4 weeks of the receipt of the order, failing which OP will be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.
16. Parties are left to bear own costs.

A copy of this order be sent/provided to all the parties free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of the order.

 

 

 

[Poonam Chaudhry]

President

                                [Bariq Ahmad]                                                                        [Shekhar Chandra]                                     Member                                                                                         Member