Delhi

East Delhi

CC/648/2014

ASHOK - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

10 Apr 2018

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. 648/14

 

Shri Ashok Kumar

S/o Shri Lakhan Rana

R/o R-14, Rita Block

Main Market, shakarpur

Delhi – 110 092                                                                              ….Complainant

Vs.

1. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Through its Chairman

Regd. Off.: Divisional Office – 1

4 Pearey Lal Building

42, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001

 

2. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Through its Branch Manager

Direct Agent Branch (351701) Laxmi Nagar

Core-II, 11^th Floor, Scope Minar

District Centre, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092

 

3. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Through its Chairman

Div. Office-II at General Claim Hub

2E/25, 3^rd Floor, JhandewalanExt.

New Delhi – 110 053Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 18.07.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 10.04.2018

Judgment Passed on: 12.04.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            The present complaint has been filed by Shri Ashok Kumar, against National Insurance Company Ltd. (OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.   

2.         Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that on 24.12.2012, the complainant had purchased a second hand Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing no. DL-10-SC 6070 from one Shri Kunal Sardana, for Rs. 67,000/-.  The said motor cycle was insured in the name of complainant on 08.07.2013 by OP on the basis of sale letter, cash receipt, delivery challan etc.  It has been stated that the complainant had given undertaking to get the vehicle transferred in his name within 15 days of issuance fresh policy.  It has been further stated that on 13.07.2013, the complainant had parked the motor cycle at the house of his friend and the same was stolen on the intervening night of 13.07.2013 -14.07.2013 for which PCR was informed and FIR no. 639/2013 u/s 379 IPC was registered with PS-Shakarpur.  OP was informed and claim was filed alongwith requisite documents. 

            Despite personal visits, the complainant was informed that his claim was under process and finally on 10.02.2014, the complainant received repudiation letter from OP-3 stating that the complainant had no insurable interest.  The complainant has stated that as the vehicle was stolen only after 5 days from issuance of insurance policy, thus, he did not get the opportunity to get the vehicle transferred in his name.

            Hence, the present complaint seeking directions to OP to pay            Rs. 54,115/- being the IDV alongwith 18% interest from 15.07.2013,            Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.

            The complainant has annexed copy of RC of the motorcycle, Sale letter dated 24.12.2012 from its previous owner in the name of the complainant, cash receipt of Rs. 67,000/- dated 24.12.2012, affidavit of Shri Kunal Sardana in r/o sale of the vehicle, copy of insurance policy dated 08.07.2013, copy of FIR no. 639/13 dated 15.07.2013, copy of untraced report dated 15.02.2013, copy of final untraced report dated 12.09.2013 and copy of repudiation letter dated 10.02.2014 alongwith the complaint.

3.         Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs, thereafter written statement was filed on their behalf, where they took several pleas in their defence such as the vehicle was not registered in the name of the complainant; he had no insurable interest on the date of occurrence, the complainant had failed to get the vehicle transferred in his name within 15 days from the date of purchase which was in contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. 

            It was also submitted that the insurance policy issued to complainant was based on the principle of indemnity according to which the maximum liability of the company could be the market value of the vehicle on the date of loss or the insured estimated value whichever was less. 

            It was further submitted that as the claim was lodged on 17.07.2013, the surveyor was appointed, who submitted his report on 24.12.2013.  Rest of the contents were denied.

            Repudiation letter dated 10.2.2014, surveyor report dated 24.12.2013 and copy of Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act was annexed with written statement.

4.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant where he has denied all the contents of the WS and reaffirmed those of his complaint.  It was stated that as per the provision of Transport Department, the vehicle could be registered after 15 days from the date of execution of sale letter on payment of a fine of Rs. 20/- per day. 

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of sale letter, cash receipt and affidavit of Shri Kunal Sardana (Ex.PW1/A colly.), copy of insurance policy dated 08.07.2013 (Ex.PW1/B), copy of FIR bearing no. 639/2013 dated 15.07.2013 (Ex.PW1/C), copy of untraced report (Ex.PW1/D), copy of final untraced report (Ex.PW1/E), copy of letter dated 10.02.2014 (Ex.PW1/F) and copy of renewal letter (Ex.PW1/G).

            OP have examined Shri V.K. Bhatia, Assistant Manager of OP, who have examined himself on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in their WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of investigator report (Ex.RW-1/1), copy of Motor Vehicle Act (Ex.RW-1/2) and copy of RC of the vehicle (Ex.RW-1/3).

6.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had got his vehicle insured on 08.07.2013, and the theft of insured vehicle took place on 13/14.07.2013 i.e. after 5 days of the issuance of insurance policy, the objection raised by OP was that the complainant had failed to get the vehicle transferred in his name, but once the policy has been issued in the name of the complainant, they are stopped from taking defence of Registration Certificate and the factum of theft also approved by surveyor appointed by OP as well as FIR and untraced report the claim of the complainant should not be repudiated on technical grounds. 

            Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct OP to pay              Rs. 40,585/- (75% of the IDV) alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint till realization.  We also award Rs. 7,500/- as compensation on account of harassment and   mental agony which includes the cost of litigation.  The order be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of order. 

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

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

Member                                                                                Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President