Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1393/2008

Sayed Azhar Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

30 Jan 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/1393/08                                                                                                                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

Sayed Azhar Ali,

B-706, New Cosmopolitan Apts.,

Plot no.33, Sector-10

Dwarka, New Delhi-110075

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

The Branch Manager,

The New India Assurance Company,

CBU, 310401 86.88, 2nd Floor, Janpath,

New Delhi-110001

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

Member: Ritu Garodia

The Complaint is pertaining to repudiation of claim by OP on theft of vehicle.

The facts in brief are that one Tata Sumo bearing no.DL-9C-A-4566 was insured from 11.09.03 to 10.09.04, said vehicle in question was stolen on intervening night of 12.11.03 and 13.11.03 and thereafter a FIR was lodged in Hari Nagar P.S by Mr. Harvinder Singh by a friend of complainant on 13.11.13 as per Annexure A1. The claim was filed on 09.12.03 annexed as Annexure A2. Subsequently, claim was repudiated by OP in its letter dated 06.10.06 and a consumer complaint was filed.

OP in its reply states that claim was filed after delay of 26 days. OP has also drawn attention to discrepancies in the statement given by complainant and Mr. Harvinder Singh in his FIR from whose custody the vehicle in question was stolen. OP further alleges the aforesaid vehicle was sold by complainant to Mr. Harvinder Singh and as such complainant was not the owner at the time of theft.

We have summarily considered the pleadings and document annexed with evidence. The vehicle was stolen from Mr. Harvinder Singh’s house, which is not disputed by either of parties.

Scrutiny of insurance paper further reveals that insurance is in the name of complainant, Sayed Azhar Ali and claim was duly filed by the complainant. However, FIR as nowhere mentions the name of complainant. The vehicle as admitted by both parties was in custody of Mr. Harvinder Singh at the time of theft who lodged the FIR and on such the name of complainant is missing from the said FIR. OP has not placed on iota of evidence to prove that complainant had sold the vehicle to Mr. Harvinder Singh. Once, a premium is accepted by OP, who is stopped from denying the claim on the speculative ground of vehicle being sold to third party.

We, therefore hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct OP to pay IDV of Rs.1,50,000/- from date of claim to realization. We also award Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP 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 30.01.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER