Delhi

South II

cc/81/2009

Amit Jaiswal - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

01 Sep 2016

ORDER

Udyog Sadan Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-16
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. cc/81/2009
 
1. Amit Jaiswal
Flat No.70-B Pocket -F Gangotri Enclave Alknanda New Delhi-19
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. National Insurance Co.Ltd
304 Sahyog Building 58 Nehru Place New Delhi-19
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S Yadav PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D .R Tamta MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Ritu Garodia MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 01 Sep 2016
Final Order / Judgement

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

 

Case No.81/2009

 

 

SH. AMIT JAISWAL

R/O FLAT NO.70-B, POCKET-F,

GANGOTRI ENCLAVE, ALKNANDA,

NEW DELHI-110019

                                             …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                  

 

Vs.

 

 

THE MANAGER/CONCERNED OFFICER

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

BRANCH OFFICE:- 304, SAHYOG BUILDING 58,

NEHRU PALCE, NEW DELHI-110019

 

                                                          …………..RESPONDENT

 

 

                                                                                 Date of Order: 01.09.2016

 

 

O R D E R

 

A.S. Yadav, President

 

It is not in dispute that complainant’s “Wagon R” car was duly insured with OP for the period from 31.08.07 to 30.08.08 for IDV of Rs.2,83,200/-.  The case of complainant is that on 01.02.08 his father took this car alongwith the driver to his office at A-324, Surya Nagar, Distt. Ghaziabad, P.S. Link road(U.P.) and parked the said car in front of the office.  After 45 minutes driver informed complainant’s father that the car is missing.  Complainant’s father alongwith his colleagues searched the vehicle here and there and ultimately the report was lodged at the PP Surya Nagar vide FIR u/s 379 of IPC under theft.

Ultimately the untraced report was filed and the Investigating Officer(IO) has stated in his report that the car has not been stolen from the place as mentioned in the complaint and that untraced report was accepted by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad.  The claim has been repudiated on that very ground by the OP. 

 

The contention of complainant is that the Ld. Judicial Magistrate has accepted the fact that the vehicle was stolen on 01.2.08 and there was no justification for repudiating the claim.  It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is prayed that OP be directed to pay the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. towards theft of car and compensation and also to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The contention of OP is that claim has been repudiated as the IO specifically reported in his report that the car was not stolen from the place as mentioned in the complaint.  In fact the theft was not committed.

 

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

 

The contention of complainant is that he approached court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate of Ghaziabad where final report No.15/08 dated 06.02.08 was accepted and vide order dated 29.04.08 it is stated that “the court accepts that car is stolen and not traceable”. 

 

It is significant to note that in the final report No.15/08 dated 06.02.08 IO has categorically stated that “during investigation it was found that the vehicle was not stolen from the place mentioned in the complaint hence this cancellation repot is prepared and that report has been accepted by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 29.04.08.”  In fact the complainant was present before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate and the statement was recorded whereby complainant has accepted the report No.15/08 dated 06.02.08 submitted by the IO.  In that report it is stated that the vehicle has not been stolen from the place as mentioned in the complaint hence the case be dismissed and that report has been accepted by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate and this was the report submitted by the IO.  OP repudiated the claim on the basis of report submitted by the IO.  As per the report of IO, the vehicle was not stolen from the place as mentioned in the complaint. 

 

It is significant to note that the vehicle was stolen on 01.2.08 and FIR was lodged on 05.02.08.  There was delay of four days in lodging the FIR.  If the vehicle in fact was stolen from the place mentioned in the complaint on 01.2.08 then why FIR was not lodged on the same day.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP in repudiating the claim because as per report of the IO, the vehicle was not stolen from the place mentioned in the complaint.

 

In view of the above facts, the complaint is dismissed.

 

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(D.R. TAMTA)                    (RITU GARODIA)                        (A.S. YADAV)

         MEMBER                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S Yadav]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D .R Tamta]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE Ritu Garodia]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.