Delhi

New Delhi

CC/334/2008

Rajinder Singh & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

03 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/334/08                                                                                                                                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Mr. Rajinder Singh, s/o S.Kartar Singh,

R/o 1/18, DDA Flats, Garhi, East of Kailash,

New Delhi-110065

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. National Insurance Company Ltd.,

        Through Branch Manager,

        P-3/90, Opp. Rivoli Cinema,

        Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001

        Also at:

        Division No.IX, 302, 3^rd floor,

        N.N. Mall, Manglam Place, Near M2K Cinema,        Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085

 

2. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd.,

        Through Manager Operations, 3, LSC,   Madangir, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi-110062

                              ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

Member: S.R Chaudhary

The Complainant had insured his motorcycle bearing no. DL3SAR2375 covering period 04.03.05 to 03.03.06 to midnight as per IDV Rs.43,500/- with a monthly installment of Rs.2,320/- per month. Suddenly the motorcycle was stolen on 18.07.05 at 4 P.M from Asaf Ali Road area and police report was also lodged at P.S Darya Ganj vide FIR 505. Later on untraced report was also obtained from police officials accordingly claim was also lodged to OP1 but OP1 repudiated the claim on 13.01.06 under plea “Key was left in vehicle” as per Exh.25 but in which it was also mentioned by OP in said in second line “Kindly clarify why your claim should not be rejected on the above ground. Kindly submit your clarification”. Complainant replied his clarification on 27.01.06 but OP replied on 10.03006 that claim file was closed. Thus complaint was filed accordingly for justice.

While securitizing OP’s W.S, it appears that OP was given intimation regarding theft of vehicle after 45 days which OP calculated the days from the date of claim as complainant alleged whereas complainant immediately informed OP on the day of theft. Further it has also taken plea of “Key left in vehicle” in W.S as well as evidence without supporting any documentary evidence to avoid the claim. Further OP1 has also stated in Para4 of W.S that it cannot exceed to pay the claim more than Rs.41,069/- as mentioned categorically which shows clearly deficiency on the part of OP.

We visualize the complainant W.S/Evidence of OP that OP deliberately took vague excuses to escape from liabilities to pay the claim under shadow of key. It is very much transparent that once the vehicle is parked at Asaf Ali Road, thereafter theft is occurred and simultaneously police report was done. Complainant also showed key to police officer at P.S Darya Ganj as stated in complaint. Thus it is a clear case of theft admitted by OP that he cannot realize the claim more than Rs.41,0689/- as per reply.

Thus OP1 is deficient and is directed to pay Rs.41,069/- along with 9% interest from the date of claim till realization. There is no deficiency on the part of OP2. The claim agent OP2 is discharged. We also award Rs.10,000/- as harassment and Rs.15,000/- as litigation to complainant as unnecessarily harassed by OP1 since 2008 to 2014 adopting unfair trade fair practices, dishonest approach, causing wrongful loss to the complainant.

The order shall be complied by OP1 within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken 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 03.03.2015.

 

                   

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER