DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/92/2017
No. DF/ Central/ Date
Ms. Rajni Mishra
W/o Sh. K.P. Mishra
R/o 321/1 Railway Colony
Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034 …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
National Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Director/Manager
(General claim hub)
2E/23, Jhandewalan Extension, 3rd Floor
(Above HDFC Bank)
New Delhi-110055 …..OPPOSITE PARTY
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mr. R.S. Nagar, Member
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, as amended alleging therein that she is the registered owner of vehicle no. DL 8 SBD 0846 model 2012 Bajaj Pulsar having valid insurance vide policy number 361503/31/14/6200002031 w.e.f. 01.09.2014 to 31.08.2015 with the OP. It is further alleged that on 02.11.2014, the above said vehicle was stolen at Daisy International School, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi and FIR No. 974 of 2014 was lodged with P.S. K.N. Katju marg District Outer Delhi under Section 379 of IPC and an untraced report from the concerned MM was obtained on 26.12.2014. The complainant lodged its claim with OP and the investigator of OP on 13.04.2014 sent a letter requiring certain documents/information which was duly provided to him by the complainant. It is further stated that while submitting the ignition key of vehicle, complainant submitted an affidavit dated 12.08.2015 duly notarized to OP mentioning that two original keys received by the complainant were deposited but one key was broken and destroyed. On 06.07.2015, complainant received a letter from OP stating that the key deposited by the complainant appeared to be brand new and does not seem to have been used for the last 4 months and further stated that the statement of complainant and her son are misleading and contradictory. Complainant replied to OP vide letter dated 06.07.2015 stating that there were two motor cycles in the house of the complainant due to which frequency of using the present vehicle was less. On 04.08.2015, the complainant received a letter vide which the claim of the complainant was repudiated stating that competent authority is not satisfied with the reply of the complainant. Complainant approached the OP many times but all in vein. Hence, instant complaint pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP and praying to direct the OP to pay Rs. 45,000/- the amount of insurance along with interest @ 18% till realization, Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages/compensation and cost of litigation.
In reply to the notice, OP admitted the fact of insurance of the vehicle in question, receipt of intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle and also submission of the claim form with the OP giving all the required details. It is further stated by the OP that the investigator recorded statement of Sh. Prabhat Kumar Mishra, Sunil, Dinesh Kumar, Complainant Rajni Mishra, Vijay Kumar and Anju Bala Sharma in respect of the stolen motor cycle. It is further stated that the investigator on perusal of the key submitted by the complainant found the key brand new and raised objection in the mind of OP and as such query was put to the complainant and the reply not found satisfactory, the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant. It is submitted by the OP that complainant submitted her explanation through affidavit but the same was found to be contradictory and misleading. OP prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs being frivolous and vexatious.
In rejoinder complainant reiterated the facts as stated in the complaint. Complainant has filed affidavit of evidence. However, despite several opportunities granted to OP neither anyone appeared on behalf of it since 07.07.2017 nor affidavit in the form of evidence has been filed on behalf of OP to corroborate the assertions made in the reply.
We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record. Complainant in her complaint has stated that Prabhat Mishra, son of the complainant has taken the vehicle in question, who was having a valid driving license with him on the date of occurrence on 02.02.2014 and the FIR has also been lodged by Prabhat Mishra on the same day. Complainant in her complaint and in the evidence in the form of affidavit stated that she has submitted an affidavit duly notarized with the OP stating the fact that out of the two keys received with the vehicle in question one key was broken and destroyed and this fact has been admitted by the OP is its reply. Statement recorded by the investigator of OP also testified the fact of theft of the vehicle in question and that the son of the complainant enquired about the missing of the vehicle from the spot and also asked the school authorities for showing the video footage. Vijay Kumar and Anju Sharma, neighbours of the complainant have also stated that the complainant told them that Bajaj Pulsar, vehicle in question, was stolen when Prabhat Mishra went to give the exam. OP has alleged in the reply that since the explanation by the complainant was found to be contradictory and misleading, the claim of the complainant was repudiated. But OP has not specifically stated as to what contradictory and misleading statement was found by it. More so OP has not filed evidence in the form of affidavit in support of its reply.
In view of the above discussion we hold that OP is not justified repudiating the claim of the complainant and direct the OP to pay Rs. 45,000/-, the insured amount to the complainant and Rs, 10,000/- as against litigation as well as compensation. The above said amount shall be paid within 30 days failing which 10% interest per annum shall be payable from the date of order till the date of payment. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this Day of 2018.
