Delhi

New Delhi

CC/690/2013

Nikhil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. United India Insurance company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

22 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/690/13                                                                                                                                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Nikhil Kumar,

S/o Sh. Mahender Kumar,

H.No.137/7 Sector-1,

Pushp Vihar, New Delhi

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

        Through its Manager,

        R/o-1, 8^th FL, Kanchanjunga Building,

        18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi

 

2. Bajaj Finance Ltd.,

        B-60-61, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-II,

        Behind Bentex Building, New Delhi

 

3. Dewan Auto,

        J-11/25, Central Market,

        Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi-24

                                         ……..OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

The Complainant of deficiency is against insurance company OP1, which insured the motorcycle of complainant from 11.11.12 to 10.11.13, and repudiated the claim of theft of the same on the ground that vehicle was not registered on the day of theft. The vehicle was insured by giving a cover note which mentioned engine number & Chassis number. The registration was pending. The vehicle was stolen on 01.12.12 from outside the house of complainant.

The OP1 in its reply has stated that vehicle was registered on 24.12.12, and since vehicle cannot be registered without producing it, the vehicle was with complainant a day of theft and he is extorting money.

We have considered the rival case. We find that OP1 has insured coverage without getting the vehicle registered first. It should not have insured the vehicle without registration first. Having done so, it has waived the necessity of registration. Secondly, if registration authority has registered it without producing the vehicle, on the basis of documents of purchase of a new vehicle the consumer cannot suffer.  Further in the R.P No.4030/2008, Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra Vs. OIC, held that S.39 of Motor Vehicle Act, does not apply, unless motor is driven on road. Similarly in the case of IFFCO TOKIO GIC Vs. Pratima Jha, II (2012) CPJ 512 (NC), it was so held.

In our considered view, OP1 has committed deficiency by repudiating the claim of insured vehicle, illegally on untenable grounds. We hold OP guilty of deficiency & direct OP to pay IDV value of motorcycle amount Rs.80,893/- with interest @ 9% from date three months from filing claim with OP till payment. We also award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for litigation expenses and harassment.

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 22.04.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER