Delhi

New Delhi

TC/1235/2008

Orient Resins Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

09 Apr 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/1235/08                     Dated:

In the matter of:

M/S. Orient Resins Ltd.,

(A BODY CORPORATE DULY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956) HAVING

ITS OFFICE AT:

G-77, NIZAMUDDIN (WEST),

 NEW DELHI-110 013

 

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

ORIENTAL  INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

JEEVAN PRAKASH BUILDING,

9^TH FLOOR, 124,

CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,

NEW DELHI

 

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

 

Member :  Ritu Garodia

 

The complaint pertains to repudiation of claim by OP on theft of vehicle. 

The complainant’s vehicle Tata Sumo, bearing No. HR-26G 8735 was insured with OP vide policy No. 2002/1863. The vehicle was stolen by two unidentified persons who drugged the driver in the intervening night of 7-8^th April, 2002, near Kanpur. The driver on recovering his senses, returned to Delhi and narrated the incident to complainant’s Director and thereafter FIR was lodged on 14.4.2002 in Achhalada Police Station which is duly annexed with complainant.  Claim was filed and untraceable report was made on 13.4.2002.  On 25.2.2003, the Magistrate gave a finding that the road between Achhalanda to Phahphund does not exist and thereafter claim was repudiated.  Complainant has also annexed photographs revealing Achhalanda Police Station, elementary school building, Achhalaanda Distt. and Phuphand Milestone.  A revised report was made by concerned magistrate on 14.3.2005 that FIR by police is liable to be accepted.

OP in its written submission had admitted the policy.  However, OP has stated that there was no occurrence of incident at the stated place as there is no Phuphand Road.  OP has laid emphasis on delay in  intimation and FIR.  OP has also annexed investigation report.

We have considered the entire records.  Perusal of file reveals that interim Order was passed on 23.12.11 wherein it was stated that delay has been appropriately explained and OP has no evidence to discredit the statement of complainant.  OP was directed to reprocess the claim afresh.   The Forum had observed in Order dated 17.5.12, that OP has again relied on old report of surveyor in which there is ambiguity regarding the existence of road itself instead of sending another surveyor/ investigator to file fresh report.

OP’s letter dated 15.2.2003, discloses that theft has not taken place at the reported spot and claim was therefore repudiated.  None-the-less, complainant has place photographic evidence including milestone of phuphnd showing the existence of disputed road.  Further the delay in lodging FIR and claim has been appropriately explained, as the driver was drugged and on coming back to conciseness, he returned to Delhi and narrated the incident to owners who thereafter filed the claim.

We, therefore, find OP guilty of deficiency in services and direct OP to pay Rs.3,11,000/- 9% interest from date of claim till realization.  We also award Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony physical inconvenience 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.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free

of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on 09.04.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)               (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER                                 MEMBER