Delhi

East Delhi

CC/317/2013

BHUPENDER SINGH SALUJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.I.A. - Opp.Party(s)

17 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  317/13

 

Shri Bhupendra Singh Saluja

S/o Shri Raghveer Singh

R/O WZ-66, Gali No. 25

Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi                                  ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

The Regional Manager (Motor Claim)

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

10^th Floor, Scope Minar, Core – I

Laxmi Nagar, Distt. Centre

Delhi.                                                                                  ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 02.05.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 17.05.2017

Judgment Passed on: 01.06.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Bhupendra Singh Saluja, the complainant against The Regional Manager (Motor Claim), The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant insured his TATA Truck, having its registration number MP 09HG 1363, Chasis No. MAT426031A1E17124, Engine no. B591452001E62875524 with The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP) vide policy no. 45080031110100002415 for the period 13.05.2011 to 12.05.2012.  On 27-28/02/2012, the said vehicle was stolen from workplace of brother of the complainant near Simran Road Carrier, 19/335, near Usha Mata Mandir, Old Rohtak Road Delhi. 

          The information of theft of the vehicle was immediately given to police and FIR was registered at P.S. Sarai Rohilla vide FIR No. 75 dated 28.02.2012.  OP at Laxmi Nagar was intimated on 09.03.2012 as directed by OP at Indore Branch.  Untraced Report was accepted by Court on 22.06.2012.

          The investigator was appointed by OP, who assured the complainant that his claim would be allowed, as there was no deficiency on the part of the complaint, but the complainant did not receive the insurance claim despite furnishing all the details and documents.  Legal notice dated 01.11.2012 was sent to OP which was not replied.

          Hence, the complainant has prayed for direction to OP to pay the IDV amount of Rs. 13,43,000/- alongwith interest of 18% p.a.,             Rs. 1,80,000/- compensation on account of harassment, mental pain, sufferings, losses and legal expenses.  The complainant has annexed Registration Certificate, permit, vehicle tax receipt, copy of insurance policy, letter to New India Assurance Co. Ltd. dated 08.03.2012, copy of FIR, final report form, untraced report and copy of legal notice with the complaint.

3.       Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP.  In the WS, OP have taken various pleas such as the original keys were left inside the vehicle which resulted into the loss of vehicle, incident of theft occurred on 27-28/02/2012, but the complainant intimated the loss to OP on 09.03.2012; the complaint does not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.  It is also stated that the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Forum.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.       Rejoinder to the WS was filed by the complainant, where he reiterated the contents of the complaint and denied those of the WS filed by OP.  It was stated that the two original ignition keys and 2 original cabin door lock keys were in possession of the complainant.

5.       Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where he examined himself and deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and reliance was placed on copy of loan account statement of Tata Motors Finance Ltd. (Ex.CW/1), copy of registration certificate, permit, fitness and tax receipts (Ex.CW/2 colly.), copy of insurance policy (Ex.CW/3), copy of FIR (Ex.CW/4), copy of intimation to insurance company (Ex.CW/5), copy of police final report duly accepted by Court (Ex.CW/6) and copy of legal notice and POD receipts (Ex.CW/7 colly.).

          OP examined Shri Vinay Batra, Manager of OP, who reiterated the contents of their WS, on affidavit.  He has also exhibited the documents such as copy of policy (Ex.R-1), copy of investigator report (Ex.R-2), copy of repudiation letter (Ex.R-3) and copy of claim form (Ex.R-4). 

6.       We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record.  Ex. R-3 is the repudiation letter, which states that the claim of the complainant was repudiated as the insured was negligent in safeguarding the insured vehicle as both the original keys used for ignition of the vehicle were kept in the subject vehicle and second key of the door lock was not submitted by the complainant. 

          The investigation report i.e. Ex.R2 has been submitted to the Regional Manager, Laxmi Nagar.  Perusal of the same reveals that the incidence of theft had occurred on 28.02.2012 and OP was intimated on 01.03.2012.  The statements of the brother and driver of the insured states that 2 keys of ignition were in the subject truck, but the driver had locked the door of the said vehicle and the key was with the driver.  Thus, door of the vehicle was locked. 

          The complainant has placed on record Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission – “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagtar Singh” RP No. 3619 of 2012, decided on 01.02.2013.  The facts in the said RP are different from the present complaint.  In the RP, the terms and conditions of the policy had not been read down or conveyed to the complainant and the findings of the investigator were not based on the statement of the complainant which is not pleaded in the present complaint. The statement of the brother and driver are consistent in stating that two used ignition keys were in the truck.  Further, the new plea taken by the complainant in his rejoinder regarding the possession of 2 ignition keys and 2 door lock keys cannot be considered, as OP did not get an opportunity to rebut it. 

          From the analysis of evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the vehicle was not insured.  Validity of insurance and theft are also not disputed.  The claim of the complainant was repudiated with reason that there was violation of condition of the policy.

          It is settled legal position that in case of breach of warranty/condition of the policy, the insurance claim may be allowed on non-standard basis.  Hence, OP is directed to settle the claim of the complainant with 75% of the IDV, which comes to Rs. 10,07,250/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  We also award Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and harassment, inclusive of legal expenses.  This order be complied within 30 days.  If OP fails to do so, then compensation shall also carry 9% interest p.a. from the date of order. 

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                            (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                     Member         

       

   (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President