Delhi

New Delhi

CC/471/2016

Prateek Sagar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

20 Apr 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-471/2016

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

PrateekSagar

S/o Sh. P.K. Sagar

R/o B-10/7311, VasantKunj

New Delhi                                                                               ...Complainant

VERSUS

 

National Insurance Company Ltd.

DIV. Office X, Flat No. 101-106

Ist Floor, N-1, B.M.C. House,

Connaught Place

New Delhi-110001                                                                  ...Respondents

 

Quorum:

Ms. PoonamChaudhry, President

Shri Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

                                                                                                            Date of Institution        : 28.07.2016                                   

 Date of Order             :20.04.2023

 

ORDER

 

SHEKHAR CHANDRA, MEMBER:

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act) against Opposite Party (in short OP).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner off Honda Jazz bearing registration no. DL 3CC E 0555.
3. It is stated in the complaint that in October, 2013, the complainant had got the vehicle in question insured from the respondent herein on 28.10.2013 vide Insurance Policy no. HNC/00082911 dated 28.10.2013 valid from 30.10.2013 till 29.10.2014.
4. It is submitted that in the night of 03.01.2014 at about 11:40 pm, the complainant alongwith his two colleagues namely Mr. Shashi Mohan and Mr. Amit Kumar were returning home in the vehicle in question. The complainant was himself driving the vehicle in question very carefully and cautiously when the complainant was about to reach the cut between the service lane and NH-8, near Rajokri flyover, suddenly a car at very high speed came from left side of the vehicle in question and took sharp turn towards the NH8 overtaking the vehicle in question from wrong side i.e. from left side and that too without giving any indicator. The complainant tried to save the vehicle in question from colliding with the said car and while doing so the vehicle in question got crashed into a boulder lying in the middle of the road. The impact of the collision was to such an extent that all the passengers in the vehicle including the complainant got severally injured.
5. After the accident, the complainant and Sh. Amit Kumar were removed to JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi and Sh. Shashi Mohan was taken to Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
6. The co-passenger of the complainant - Amit Kumar was declared brought dead at AIIMS.  The complainant remained in hospital from 04.01.2014  till 03.02.2014 for treatment of injuries received by him in the said accident.
7. It is submitted that the police authorities had registered an FIR No. 32/2014 with P.S. Vasant Kunj (South), New Delhi. The father of complainant vide a letter dated 06.01.2014 had duly informed the opposite party about said accident of the vehicle in question and had informed the respondent that the vehicle in question is in custody of Police authorities. The complainant was discharged from JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS on 03.02.2014.
8. The complainant vide letter dated 11.08.2014 enquired from the opposite party whether they have assessed the loss caused to the vehicle. However the opposite party neither responded to the earlier letter dated 06.01.2014 nor to the letter dated 11.08.2014. It is further stated in the complaint that in the said letter it was clearly mentioned that the vehicle in question has been badly damaged and the same appears to be a total loss to the complainant.
9. Since the date of accident i.e. 03.01.2014, the vehicle in question was lying in custody of police.
10. The complainant has got the vehicle in question released from the police custody and took the same in his possession on Superdari vide order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the Court of Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Ld. MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
11. The opposite party had not taken any action for assessing the loss, thus the complainant on 13.05.2016 got the vehicle in question inspected at M/s Saket Motors Pvt. Ltd. authorised workshop of Honda to assess the loss in the vehicle and the costs for repairing the same.
12. It is submitted that M/s Saket Motors Pvt. Ltd. have estimated that total costs for repairing the vehicle in question would be Rs.12,24,510/- and have declared the same to be total loss as the said costs of repair is much higher than the actual current value of the vehicle in question.
13. It is further submitted that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was covered by Insurance Policy No. HNC/00082911 valid from 30.10.2013 to 29.10.2014 issued by the respondent. The ID Value mentioned in the said policy was Rs.4,25,000/-.
14. The complainant had availed the services of the respondent herein and had got the vehicle in question insured by taking comprehensive insurance policy thereby covering damage, if any, caused to the vehicle in question also.
15. The complainant submits that inaction on the part of opposite party herein in processing the claim of the complainant for the damage caused to the vehicle in question and releasing amount in favour of the complainant amounts to deficiency. That due to abovementioned deficiency and inaction on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has been harassed by the opposite party.
16. It is submitted that the opposite party is liable to pay interest 18% per annum  on the amount of Rs 4,25,000/- for the period of delay in making the payment to the complainant.
17.  The complainant submits that the opposite party work for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The policy in question was also issued by the opposite party from the office situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Thus this Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present dispute.
18. Thus, it is prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- being the value of the vehicle as per insurance policy prevailing at the time of accident.
19. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP. OP entered appearance and filed written statement stating that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in its present form and hence it is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that claim is time barred as no intimation of their alleged claim has been ever been lodged with the opposite party at any point of time by the complainant.
20. It is further submitted that the complainant as the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. Hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The facts remain to be that the complainant has not received/got any compensation from the opposite party. The FIR registered in P.S. VasantKunj South vide FIR no. 0032 dated 04.01.2015 under Section 279/304A/337 IPC clearly shows that the complainant and his associates were having/consume alcohol at the time of accident.That the complainant has not filed the valid license alongwith the present complaint.
21. The opposite party further alleges that the dispatch receipts are forged and fabricated and hence the same cannot be considered. It is pertinent to mention here that even before the court of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, the Hon’ble Court has held that while deciding the Issue No.-1 that the accident has been caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the claimant herein. This fact has been concealed by the claimant while filing the present complaint before this Commission.
22. The complainant filed rejoinder reiterating therein the averments made in the complaint and controverting all the allegation made in the written statement. Complainant thereafter filed its evidence by way of affidavit but OP did not file its evidence. Vide order dated 15.05.2018 OP was proceeded exparte.
23. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Parties and perused the evidence and material on record as well as their written arguments.
24. It is to be noted that 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 claim was closed as NIL CLAIM as complainant failed to submit the documents required by OP. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 653/2020 SLP(C) 24370/15 titled Gurshindersingh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. and another has held as under:

“That in case of theft insurance company and 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.

 

25. It is the case of OP that the complainant failed to provide the necessary documents for processing the claim, the said fact has gone unrebutted.
26. In view thereof we grant 6 weeks time to complainant to provide the required documents to OP to process the claim. OP shall process the claim subject to complainant providing the required documents and send the claim report to the complainant. The complaint stands disposed off.

A copy of this order be provided/sent to all 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

 

 

                                    [Shekhar Chandra]

                                                     Member