Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1108/2012

Shandilya Tyagi Roadlines - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

24 Aug 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

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

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110001.

 

Case No.CC/1108/12                                                                                                                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

M/S SHANDILYA TYAGI ROADLINES

(REGD.) 1162 B, TRANSIT CAMP

GOVIND PURI,

NEW DELHI-110019.

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

(A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)

JEEVAN BHARTI, TOWER II,

LEVEL-IV,  124, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,

NEW DELHI-55

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

Member: Ritu Garodia

 

        The complaint pertains to repudiation of claim on theft of vehicle.  The complainant purchased an insurance policy for his vehicle TATA 909 bearing number DL-1M-5115 vide policy number 360500/31/10/63-8119.  The vehicle was stolen in the intervening night between 15.5.2011 and 16.5.2011.   The police was informed and claim was filed. Copy of DD and FIR annexed with the complaint.  OP repudiated the claim vide letter dated 23.11.15 on the grounds of negligence in safe guarding property.  Several correspondences were exchanged and complaint filed.

        OP in its version has stated that the complainant is not a consumer.  It has been further stated that first key was misplaced in July, 2010 and second key was kept in dash board which displays negligence on part of complainant.  They are also claim that theft took place on 15.5.2011 but FIR was lodged on 20.5.11.  Affidavit of surveyor is placed on record.

We have considered the pleadings and documents on record.  The policy and theft is not disputed by any party.  Complainant had informed the police on same day as shown by Daily Diary Entry annexed with the record.  Complainant has also stated that as the transit was for long distance, both keys were given to driver and one was kept in the dashboard.  OP has claimed that its investigation found out that one original key was misplaced in July,2010 but no evidence has been adduced to prove the fact.

In our considered view, there was no negligence on part of complainant in carrying both keys for long distance.  The vehicle was kept overnight in company compound which was covered by CCTV footage showing that thieves have broken into the vehicle.  The complainant’s driver had duly locked the vehicle and parked it in company compound where the incidence of theft occurred.  A reasonable and prudent man takes insurance cover for extra protection against untoward incidents like theft, accident etc. OP by denying claim after taking premium on flimsy ground of negligence has shown its indifference and callous attitude towards travails of ordinary insured person man.

We, hence hold OP guilty of imperfection in service and direct it to pay IDV of Rs.6,93,000/- with 9% interest from date of claim till realization.  We also award Rs.25,000/- as compensation for  mental agony and harassment inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with 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 24.08.2015.

 

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER