Delhi

East Delhi

CC/376/2014

MOVER SHAPPING - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

16 May 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 376/14

 

Movers Shipping India Pvt. Ltd.

44, L.G.F., World Trade Centre

Babar Lane, Connaught Place

New Delhi – 110 001                                                    ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

National Insurance Company Limited

2E/9, Jhandewalan Extension

New Delhi – 110 055                                                        …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 16.04.2014

Judgement Reserved on: 14.09.2018

Judgement Passed on: 25.09.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Movers Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. against National Insurance Company Limited (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant is a private limited company, engaged in the business of clearing and forwarding agents, both by Sea and Air, on commission basis. 

            On 31.08.2009, Tata Safari bearing no. DL2CQ 4886 was purchased by the complainant and the same was insured by OP vide policy               no. 420501/31/11/6100003856 with effect from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2012.  The insured vehicle was stolen on 20.03.2012 for which police was informed and FIR no. 102/2012 under Section 379 IPC was registered with police station Krishna Nagar.  Claim was filed with OP on 16.07.2012 and reason for delay was explained vide separate letter dated 16.07.2012 (wrongly mentioned as 16.07.2013). 

            It has been stated that despite clarifications, the claim of the complainant was rejected under condition no. 1 of the policy terms and conditions vide letter dated 20.07.2012.  The complainant had also furnished an affidavit dated 29.08.2012 explaining the reasons of delay which was not considered by OP. 

            Legal notice dated 15.07.2013 was served upon OP, which was not replied.  It has further been stated that the insured vehicle has neither been recovered nor the accused has been found.  Hence, the present complaint with prayer to reopen and process the claim of the stolen vehicle and pay the sum equivalent to the IDV of the car i.e. Rs. 5,42,500/-; compensation on account of mental agony, pain and harassment as Rs. 1,00,000/- and       Rs. 33,000/- towards cost of litigation.

             The complainant has annexed copy of insurance policy, copy of FIR dated 20.03.2012, copy of letters dated 16.07.2012 written by the complainant to OP, copy of rejection letter dated 20.07.2012, copy of affidavit and copy of legal notice dated 15.07.2013 with postal receipts alongwith complaint.

3. , they have taken various pleas such as the complainant was not a consumer as the vehicle was purchased by the company which was engaged in commercial business; the claim was repudiated as no claim as per policy terms and conditions and this Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the policy was taken from Karnal office of the respondent company.

It was stated that the vehicle was financed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. as per IMT Clause-7 and the claim amount required to be paid to the Pledgee bank and not to the insured.

It was further stated that the incident took place on 20.03.2012.The complainant lodged the FIR on 20.03.2012 itself, but informed the respondent company first time on 16.07.2012 i.e. after 3 months and 25 days from the incident at Jhandewalan Extension office.Other facts have also been denied.

It was also stated that in case the complaint was allowed, then the complainant be asked to submit the following documents:

1. The RC transfer in favour of company
2. Letter of subrogation and power of attorney
3. Non traceable report from competent authority
4. No objection letter from financer.

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of their complaint. 

5.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined                  Shri Sachin Rai, Manager of Movers Shipping India Pvt. Ltd.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also exhibited the documents such as Certificate of incorporation of the complainant company alongwith the memorandum and articles of association (Ex.CW-1/1), extracts of the Board Resolution dated 30.09.2013 (Ex.CW-1/2), copy of insurance policy (Ex.CW-1/3), copy of FIR (Ex.CW-1/4), copy of letters dated 16.07.2012 (Ex.CW-1/5 & 1/6), copy of rejection letter (Ex.CW-1/7), copy of affidavit (Ex.CW-1/8) and copy of legal notice alongwith postal receipts (Ex.CW-1/9). 

            In defence, OP have examined Shri Rajneesh Kumar, Administrative Officer of OP, who has deposed on affidavit.  They have narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.  They have also got exhibited documents such as copy of policy mentioning the terms and conditions (Ex.RW1/A), copy of intimation letter to the insurance company (Ex.RW1/B) and copy of repudiation letter (Ex.RW1/C). 

6.         We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  Firstly deciding upon the locus of the complainant to file the present complaint, it has been contended by OP that complainant being a company was engaged in commercial business and was not a consumer. 

            It is settled principle of law that where goods purchased or service hired in an activity which is not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be considered commercial purpose.  Here, OP has placed nothing on record to show that insured vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. 

            As far as objection regarding territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the part of cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of this forum as the FIR for theft was registered in P.S. Krishna Nagar. 

            Now, deciding on the merits, the claim of the complainant was rejected under violation of condition no. 1 i.e. delay in intimation to OP.  If we look at Ex.CW1/4, i.e.; FIR no. 102/2012 of dated 20.03.2012, it is of the same day of theft, once the complainant has set the criminal machinery into motion by informing the police authorities, and further the complainant has given the reasons of delay in his letter to OP dated 12.06.2012, OP could not reject the claim of the complainant on technical grounds. 

            Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the present complaint, we direct OP to settle the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of IDV (Rs. 4,06,875/-) alongwith interest @ 7% from the date of filing of complaint till realization.  Further, we award compensation of               Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment and agony, inclusive of litigation expenses.     

            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