Delhi

New Delhi

CC/836/2014

Anju Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Dec 2019

ORDER

 

 

                                   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                 (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                            ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                    NEW DELHI-110001

 

 Case No.C.C./836/2014                                        Dated:

          In the matter of:

          Ms. Anju Kumari,

          D/o Sh. Samraj Singh,

          R/o  H.No.E-1/1, Police Colony,

          Andrews Ganj, New Delhi. 

         Through Sh. Samraj Singh being an attorney and

          Father of the complainant.                                   

…… Complainant

 

Versus

Management of

M/s The New India AssuranceCompany Ltd.,

      Office at: CDU-311400, 10,

       Parliament Street,

      Jeevan Deep Building,

                2^nd Floor, New Delhi-110001

……. Opposite party

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

       

The facts as alleged in the complaint are that  the complainant is registered owner of motor cycle  bearing registration No. DL-38-BD-2209 make pulsar duly insured with the OP vide its policy bearing No.311400/31/09/01/00001171 w.e.f. 9.7.2009 to 8.7.2010(midnight).  The complainant lodged a complaint through  her father about the theft of the motorcycle with P.S. Hauz Khas on 14.2.2010 mentioning the fact that the vehicle in question was parked outside the house on 13.2.2010 around 9,.30 p.m. and in the morning on 14.2.2010, the same was found stolen.   FIR bearing No.56/2010 u/s 379 IPC  was lodged with P.S. Hauz Khas, Delhi. The OP Insurance Co. was also informed about the theft. Surveyor, Mr. Achyut Jhingran was appointed, who recorded the statement of the neighbourer of the complainant. 

 

2.     On 18.2.2010, an intimation was received from PS Hauz Khas, wherein, I.O., H.C. Jaipal informed about the recovery of the motorcycle from DND Flyway. The father of the complainant recognized the No. plate and chasis of the motorcycle and rest of the part as well as engine were found replaced.  On 19.2.2010, the surveyor also visited the P.S. and obtained the photos of the said motor cycle.  The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Sh. Ravinder Singh issued the untraced report. Thereafter, father of the complainant approached OP and requested for settlement of the claim but no avail.  The father of the  complainant several times visited the office of  OP but till date the complainant neither got any information nor the insurance claim amount  despite her father effort from pillar to post. Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of her grievance.

 

3.     Complaint has been contested by OP.  OP filed written statement wherein it denied any deficiency in services on its part and stated that the complainant has concealed the material facts.  It is further stated that after receiving the information of the theft, the Surveyor, Mr. Achyut Jhingran was appointed by the OP, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.12,096/- and the same was payable after the complainant got the vehicle repaired.  The complainant has failed to repair the vehicle in question as such OP is not liable for any relief claim. Further prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

5.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

6.     Some facts are not disputed by the parties such as the Insurance policy, and theft occurred.  Admittedly the complainant informed the OP about the incident of theft  and the OP appointed the surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of  Rs.12,096/-.

7.     It is argued on behalf of OP Co. that since the complainant has failed to repair the vehicle in question, the OP Co. is not liable to reimburse him as per the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the  complainant is not entitled for any relief.

8.     We are not in agreement with the contention of the counsel for the OP.  Insurance is means of protection from financial loss.  It is a form of risk management, primarily used to hedge against the risk of contingent or uncertain loss.  In the present case, admittedly, the  OP had provided the Insurance Cover to the vehicle in question, there was a theft which was already admitted by the OP.  The primarily liability of the OP Insurance Co. is to indemnify the insured against the loss suffered.   In the present case, also there is a loss, hence, in our view the same should be indemnified by the insurer i.e OP.  The OP cannot escape from its liabilities under the pretext that the vehicle is not repaired, hence the loss should not be reimbursed.

9.     Perusal of the file shows that the  OP Insurance Co. has placed on record the report of the  surveyor, who is independent person appointed by IRDA to investigate and assess the loss suffered by insured. Moreover, in the present case, the complainant has not challenged the surveyor report.  Complainant has failed to place on record any documents justifying the claim total loss of the vehicle. Hence, we are inclined to hold that the actual loss suffered by the complainant is Rs.12,096/- which the OP is liable to indemnify/refund. Our view find support from the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission  In PAALM EATABLE LTD. VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. IV(2004) CPJ 22(NC)  in which it was held that

“Surveyor’s report an important document, sufficient reasons must be shown to reject it or reasons for not accepting it”.

 

10.    In view of the above discussion and the judgement cited above, we are of the considered opinion that non-settlement of the claim by OP amounts to deficiency in services on the part of OP Insurance Co.  We, therefore, direct the OP Insurance Co.  as under:

 

i).     Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.12,096/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 5.11.2014 till its realization.

ii)      Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of pain and mental agony suffered by him which will also include  litigation cost . 

            

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on 03/12/2019.

                                                          

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER