DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 798/2016
D.No._______________________ Date: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SAZID S/o SH. MOHD. NAZIR,
R/o H. No.-D-611, JAHANGIR PURI,
DELHI-110033. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. NATIONAL INS. Co. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
C-1/3, LAXMI TOWER, 2nd FLOOR,
NANI WALA BAGH, AZADPUR, DELHI-110033.
2. TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
33, 1st FLOOR, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
NEAR EPF OFFICE, WAZIRPUR INDL. AREA,
DELHI-110052. … OPPOSITE PARTY (ies)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 22.08.2016
Date of decision:26.05.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyallegingthat the complainant purchased a vehicle Tata Motors ACE/Chhota Hathi bearing Regn. No. DL-1L-S-9561 and the said vehicle is financed by OP-2 and the vehicle is insured with OP-1 bearing
CC No. 798/2016 Page 1 of 7
policy no. 55270031146360072244 for the period from 29.08.2014 to 28.08.2015 (mid-night) and the IDV value of Rs.3,49,474/-. On 07.12.2014 at about 11:45 p.m., the complainant parked the said vehicle near his premises and on 08.12.2014 at about 5:00 a.m., when the complainant came for taking the said vehicle to Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, the complainant was shocked when his said vehicle was not found there and the complainant tried to trace the said vehicle and finally called at 100 number and lodged the complaint of theft vide FIR no. 1040 dated 08.12.2014 u/s 379 lodged with Police Station, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. Thereafter, OP-1/agent/Police Department/ Transport Department/ Financer were also informed about the theft of the said vehicle and the said vehicle could not be traced so far and Police Department filed untraced report before the concerned court of MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi and the complainant supplied all relevant documents to OP’s but the officials of OP’s is not giving proper response in this matter nor releasing the theft claim of the said vehicle. In this regard, the complainant approached OP’s officials uncounted times but there is no proper response in this matter by the side nor they are releasing the theft claim amount of Rs.3,49,474/- of the said vehicle and only false assurances are given that the claim is under process. The complainant further alleged that OP-2 is pressurizing the complainant for making the payment of pending installments amount and OP-1 failed to pay the theft claim of the said vehicle
CC No. 798/2016 Page 2 of 7
amount of Rs.3,49,474/- despite repeated requests of the complainant which has caused great mental tension pain, agony, harassment, inconvenience and loss to the complainant hence there is clear deficiency on the part of OP-1.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OP-1 to release the theft claim of the stolen vehicle i.e. Rs.3,49,474/- of the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. as well as compensationof Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental, physical pain, agony and harassment and delay and has also sought Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. OP-1 & OP-2 have been contesting the case and filed their separate written statement. OP-1 in its written statement submitted that the insured is guilty of violation of terms & conditions no.-1 of the insurance policy “Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require and every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured and notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest of fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may be the subject of a claim under the policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police, co-operate with the
CC No. 798/2016 Page 3 of 7
company in securing the conviction of the offender.” OP-1 further submitted that there is a gross delay of 156 days in reporting the matter to OP which diminished the chances of recovery and prevented OP from making timely investigation to ascertain the genuineness of claim and the delay is prominent and gross violation of condition no.1 of the insurance policy and OP-1 is not liable to pay any amount towards the claim of the complainant as per terms & conditions of the insurance policy. OP-1 further submitted that OP-1 vide its letter dated 04.08.2015 and reminders dated 20.08.2015, 01.10.2015 & 31.10.2015 requested the complainant to produce the driver before the investigator for his statement and to complete other formalities i.e. to provide 100 number call detail, original invoice of the theft vehicle, last service bill/record, last pollution certificate and to give reason for delayed intimation to company after a delay of more than 156 days but the complainant failed to reply OP-1 had no option but to close the claim. OP-1 further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. OP-2 in its written statement submitted that the complainant has accepted the said vehicle which was financed by OP-2 and the complainant has no complaint against OP-2 even he is accepting that he is liable to pay to OP-2 and the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
CC No. 798/2016 Page 4 of 7
5. The complainant filed separate rejoinders to written statement of OP-1 & OP-2 and denied the submissions of OP-1 and re-affirmed allegations mentioned in the complaint.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of R.C., copy of Certificate of Insurance Cum Policy Schedule vide policy no. 55270031146360072244 for the period from 29.08.2014 to 28.08.2015 (mid-night) issued by OP-1, copy of FIR no. 1040 dated 08.12.2014, copy of Form-1 dated 08.12.2014 issued by Delhi Police Control Room regarding call received & transmitted by Ct. Ved Parkash/3398/PCR/28910576, copy of Final Form Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. (untraced report and copy of order dated 28.01.2015 passed by MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi, copy of Pollution Under Control Certificate and copy of Certificate of Fitness dated 04.09.2015 issued by Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi.
7. On the other hand, Sh. Partap Singh, Senior Officer/Authorized Representative of OP-1 filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per defence taken by OP-1 in the written statement. OP-1 also filed copies of Final Reminders dated 04.08.2015, 20.08.2015, 01.10.2015 & 31.10.2015 sent by OP-1 to the complainant, copy of letter dated 17.11.2015 sent by OP-1 to the complainant regarding submissions of documents and copy of terms & conditions of the policy. OP-1 also filed written arguments.
CC No. 798/2016 Page 5 of 7
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant and OP-1. The case of the complainant has remained consistent throughout and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The sole defence taken by OP-1 about delay of 156 days in giving intimation of theft of vehicle to OP-1 does not seem to be a genuine and valid defence. OP-1 has not disputed the factum of FIR no.1040 dated 08.12.2014 which was lodged by the complainant at P.S. Jahangir Puri, Delhi and has also not disputed the order dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Court of M.M., Rohini Courts, Delhi regarding acceptance of untraced report of the vehicle. So, it cannot be said that the vehicle of the complainant was not stolen and the complainant has immediately lodged complaint regarding theft of his vehicle with local police and it shows that the defence taken by OP-1 is a sham and bogus defence and cannot be considered.
9. Thus, OP-1 ought not to have repudiated the claim of the complainant and this action of OP-1 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and OP-1 ought to have passed the claim of the complainant and failure on the part of OP-1 to pay to the complainant its genuine claim amounts to deficiency in service. Thus, OP-1is held guilty of unfairtrade practice and deficiency in service.
CC No. 798/2016 Page 6 of 7
10. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct OP-1 to:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,49,474/- being the IDV of the vehicle and the complainant to return original invoice and to sign transfer papers in favour of OP-1.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered.
iii)To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost oflitigation.
11. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment.If OP-1 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 26th day of May, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 798/2016 Page 7 of 7
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
