Delhi

New Delhi

CC/368/2018

PAPPU TANTI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Oct 2022

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC.368/2018  

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Pappu Tanti

S/o Shri Keshav Tanti

R/o F-126/11, Hari Nagar Extn.

Part II, New Delhi-110044                                           ...COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

 

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Divisional Manager

Having its Office at

DO X, Hero Vertical

101-106 BMC House

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001                                                          ...OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Quorum:

 

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Bariq Ahmad, Member

Ms.  Adarsh Nain, Member

                                                                                                                          Date of Institution:-         17.09.2018                                                                                                                                                                Date of Order   : - 19.10.2022

ORDER

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in brief CP Act). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of Motor Cycle bearing No. DL-3S-CW-8137 (Hero-Splendor) which was insured with the respondent vide policy bearing No. 39010231176200145016 for a sum of Rs. 34,720/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty) for the period w.e.f. 12.04.2017 to 11.04.2018.
2. It is also stated that on 13.03.2018 at about 3:10 pm, the complainant parked his aforesaid motorcycle in front of gate No. 2 of the factory, M/s Malhotra Leather Export Pvt. Ltd. A-24 Sector 67, Noida UP, where he was working as a field boy.
3. It is also alleged  that on 13.03.2018 at about 5:00 pm when the complainant came out from the said factory, he was shocked and surprised to see that his motor cycle was missing. The complainant checked the CCTV Camera of said factory and it was found that someone has committed theft of said motor cycle. The complainant immediately made a call at 100 number and the police officials visited the site at 6:49 pm and advised the complainant to make a complaint with Sector 71 Noida Police Station. It is alleged that Fir No. 0419 dated 19.03.2018 was registered under Section 379 IPC.
4. It is also stated that the complainant got the said insurance policy through authorized agent of the respondent namely Mr. Rekha of M/s Singla Agencies, Badarpur, New Delhi. The complainant immediately contacted Ms. Rekha on her mobile number 8750059098 and intimated her about theft of his motor cycle and she assured to do the needful. It is further alleged that the police has also filed untraced report. The complainant also submitted requisite documents with the respondent and requested for payment insured amount.
5. It is also averred that respondent wrote a letter dated 07.06.2018 thereby intimating that the claim of the complainant is not maintainable due to delay of 83 days in the respondent . It is alleged that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 34,720/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty) towards insured amount of said stolen motor cycle.
6. It is further stated that due to the illegal and unlawful acts of the respondent, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment, inconvenience, for which the respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) towards damages to the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.
7. It is prayed that respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 34,720/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty) to the complainant and also direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) towards mental agony, harassment, inconvenience etc. to the complainant and also award Rs. 11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand) towards costs of litigation in favour of the complainant and against the respondent.
8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for parties and perused the record.
9. Notice of the complaint was served to OP who entered appearance however as written statement was not filed OP was proceeded exparte.
10. It is to be noted that that complainant had taken the policy of the vehicle in question from OP and the theft of the vehicle took place during the continuance of the said policy. The claim was repudiated on the ground of delay in informing the OP. Ld. counsel for complainant contended that the claim was repudiated arbitrarily.
11. In view of the unrebutted testimony of complainant, we are of the view the repudiation of the claim of the complaint was unjustified. The complainant had filed his evidence by affidavit and filed and relied upon Registration certificate of the vehicle in question, issuance Policy.
12. It is to be noted that complainant/Insured lodged the FIR immediately after theft of the vehicle occurred. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Civil Appeal No. 653/2020 SLP(C) 24370/15 titled Gurshinder singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. and another

         That in case of theft insurance company or a Surveyor would have a limited role. It is the police who on filing of FIR of insured will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and recovery the vehicle per contra the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most could ascertain the factum of theft.In the event the police recovers the vehicle and returns it to the insured, there would be no occasion to lodge a claim for compensation on account of the policy. It is only when the police is not in a position to trace the vehicle and final report is lodged by police that vehicle is not traced the insured would be entitled to lodge a claim for compensation. The survey of insurance company is also required to enquire whether the claim of theft is genuine or not. If the surveyor findsthat claim of theft is genuine then coupled with registration ofFIR it would be conclusive proof of the vehicle being stolen.

13. In the present case the facts remain unrebutted that theft occurred on 13.03.2018 and FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. 13.03.2018. A copy of final report has been filed wherein it is stated that vehicle could not traced.
14. We accordingly hold that OP was guilty of deficiency in service as its arbitrarily repudiated the claim. In the said facts and circumstances we hold OP liable to pay the insured declared value of the vehicle Rs. 34,720/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty) with interest @ 9% per annum as well as compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) for mental agony Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as cost of litigation from the date of filing of complaint within 4 weeks of the receipt of the order, failing which OP will be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. till realization.

The Copy of order be provided/sent to all parties free of cost.

The order be uploaded on the website of the Commission.

File be consigned to record room with a copy of the order.

 

 

(POONAM CHAUDHRY)

President

   (BARIQ AHMAD)                                                            (ADARSH NAIN)   

             Member                                                                            Member