DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 674/13
Shri Vinay Prakash Gupta
R/o C-35, Ground Floor
Parasnath Paradise
Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP ….Complainant
Vs.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Situated at DRO-II, 10th Floor, Scope Minar
Core-I, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre
Delhi – 110 092 ….Opponent
Date of Institution: 13.09.2013
Judgment Reserved for :26.08.2016
Judgment Passed on : 30.08.2016
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 under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act by Shri Vinay Prakash Gupta against M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (OP), alleging deficiency in services.
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased motor cycle, bearing UP 86 C 6900 on 15.07.2005 and got it insured from M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (OP) vide policy no. 32160431090100203951 for IDV value Rs. 24,000/- and the cover was from 08.02.2010 to 07.02.2011. That on 27.05.2010, the motor cycle of the complainant was stolen from Ghaziabad, UP, for which he immediately lodged a FIR at the police station, Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad and got FIR registered. In FIR, the complainant had stated that the original RC and policy documents were also stolen as they were lying in the insured vehicle. He also stated that he had orally informed the OP on the same day. Further, on 23.06.2010, untrace report was filed by the police.
It is also stated in the complaint that on 06.07.2010, complainant applied for insurance claim and thereafter, surveyor was appointed by the OP on 15.08.2010. OP repudiated the claim of the complainant on 07.10.2011 stating that there was violation of policy condition No. 1 of the policy terms and conditions.
The complainant has filed this complaint praying for Rs. 24,000/- as the sum assured along with interest @ 24% p.a. and compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- for deficiency in services.
The complainant is relying on invoice dated 15.07.2005 (Annex.1), policy bond (Annex.2), copy of the FIR (Annex.3), final report (Annex.4), letter from OP dated 06.07.2010 (Annex.5), untraced report (Annex.6), letter from the surveyor appointed by the OP i.e. Mach Insurnce Auxiliary Services Pvt. Ltd. (Annex.7), letter, written by the complainant to the OP for settlement of claim (Annex.8) and rejection letter (Annex.9).
Thereafter, the notice of the complaint was served to the OP and OP submitted their WS. In the WS, OP has stated that the claim of the complainant was repudiated due to violation of condition no. 1 of the policy document i.e. delay in informing the OP regarding the theft. Thereafter, complainant filed the rejoinder, where he reiterated the averments made in complaint.
3. We have heard the complainant and have gone through written submissions filed by OP. The vehicle was insured, is admitted fact by both the parties. The complainant had lodged FIR immediately i.e. on 27.05.2010. There was no delay in lodging of FIR. The original RC and policy document were also in the insured vehicle. It is also admitted that written claim was filed on 06.07.2010, almost after a delay of 1 month 11 days and all formalities were completed, surveyor was appointed, the Annexure 8, which has an endorsement which states that “the reason appears to be genuine recommends consideration of the claim of the insured”.
The OP has relied on two judgments. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Avtar [I(2014) CPJ 29 (NC)] and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Vs. Pawan Kumar [III (2014) CPJ 162 (NC)].
The facts mentioned in the above cited judgements are only similar to the extent of delay in informing the insurer and the claim was repudiated on the grounds of suspicion as to the conduct of the claimant.
Here, in the present complaint, not an iota of doubt has been raised on the conduct of the insured. The claim has been repudiated on technical ground, i.e. delay in intimation. The evidence available on record i.e. FIR and untraced report are the best piece of evidence to prove the theft of complainant vehicle.
Hence, we direct the OP to pay the IDV value of Rs. 24,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realisation. We further award Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation. The order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of the order. If the same is not complied within the stipulated period, the awarded amount of Rs. 31,500/- will carry an interest of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation.
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
