Delhi

New Delhi

CC/763/2012

Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

29 May 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/763/12                                                                                                                                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Mohan,

R/o 71, Village Moti Bagh,

Nanak Pura, Delhi-110021

 

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Divisional Officer IV,

21, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002

 

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

 

The complaint alleges deficiency against OP in repudiating the theft claim of vehicle DL6CJ2874. It is alleged that the vehicle was duly insured with OP from 12.3.10 to 11.3.11; and on 26.3.10 it was stolen from near his house. He allegedly informed police on no.100 and OP was also informed. Both told him to wait for lodging of FIR. The vehicle could not be recovered and the FIR was lodged on 13.4.10. The OP was also informed on 16.4.10 explaining delay. It is alleged that all relevant documents demanded by OP were given, but OP repudiated the claim by closing it as no claim settling that the complainant had withdrawn the claim and that he had not given all documents. It is alleged that thereafter the vehicle was recovered by police, which was of no use and beyond repairs. He demanded IDV value of the vehicle which was denied. Thereafter this complaint is filed.

The OP filed a reply denying any deficiency in service. It is stated that the information of theft was not given immediately on theft but on 16.4.11 and that vehicle was being used commercially and that information of recovery was never given to OP.

We have considered the material on record, document from police, evidence and submissions. It is seen from the record that though police recoded FIR late, but record of intimation to police on no.100 is on record. The report to OP itself mentions of no report to Op till 16.4.11. However, the record of report by complainant to National Crime Report Bureau in respect of this claim shows that registered owner settled the claim with OP on total loss basis and all rights were transferred to OP Company.

In the light of these facts, it is clear that having settled the claim and transfer of rights to OP, the complaint of deficiency cannot be filed by complainant. These facts are not disclosed in complaint and he has come with unclean hands, the complaint being false is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

The order shall be complied 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 29.05.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER