Delhi

North East

CC/293/2017

Sh. Mehraj Ahmed - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.293/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Maharaj Ahmed S/o Sh. Abdul Jabbar R/o H.No. 1089, Gali No. 39/1, Jafrabad, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	M/s Aman Motors (Through its Proprietor/Manager) At: Main Wazirabad Road Brijpuri, Delhi-110094   National Insurance Company Ltd. (Through its Director/Manager/A.R) Office At: 1st Floor, BMC House, N-1, Connaught Place, New Delhi	Opposite Party No.1           Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF ORDER      :

27.09.2017 16.09.2022 22.11.2022

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had an insurance policy for his vehicle bearing no. D1-5S-BU-8803 having insurance policy no. 39010231166201819951 valid from 01.08.16 to 31.07.17 with insurance claim value of Rs. 32,935/-. The Complainant stated that the said vehicle was stolen on 20.06.17 and the Complainant lodged an e-FIR bearing no. 018885 dated 20.06.17. The intimation of the theft was reported to Opposite Party No.2 on 21.07.17 and the police has also filed his untraced report on 05.08.17 before concerned Hon’ble Court of Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Ld. ACMM, distt. Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The Complainant stated that the Opposite Party No.2 refused to pay the claim to the Complainant vide letter dated 25.07.17 on false and frivolous grounds. The Complainant stated that the vehicle was stolen on 20.06.17 and he intimated the Opposite Party on 21.07.17 as at the time of providing the insurance policy by Opposite Party No.1 on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 they did not provide him the complete copy and in that nowhere is mentioned  the conditions of Opposite Party. The Complainant submitted that he visited the office of Opposite Party many times and requested for his insurance claim but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to his request. The Complainant had taken the insurance policy from Opposite Party but after the said vehicle was stolen the Opposite Party did not pay the insurance claim to him. Hence this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 32,935/- for the insurance policy amount of vehicle in question along with interest 18 % p.a. from the filing of the claim till its realization and Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 11,000/- for litigation charges.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement.  It is stated by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant has not locus standi to file the present complaint against he Opposite Party No.1 as the Opposite Party No.1 is the authorized dealer of Hero Motocorp and corporate agent of National Insurance Company i.e. Opposite Party No.2 and the liability to pass or reject the theft claim of the complainant is between Complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the answering Opposite Party No.1
3. That no cause of action arose in favour of the Complainant and against the answering Opposite Party for filing the present complaint. The complainant has no cause of action in his favour and against the answering Opposite Party, the complaint does not disclose any cause of action in favour of the Complainant.

 

 

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

4. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement.  It is stated by the Opposite Party No.2 that is there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in repudiating the claim of the Complainant as per terms and conditions of insurance Policy no. 39010231166201819951 insuring vehicle no. DL-5S-BU-8803 valid from 01.08.16 to 31.07.17. The Complainant has informed the Opposite party about theft of the aforesaid vehicle after 32 days which is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. The condition of the policy stipulates that the notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject matter of claim under this policy, the insured shall give immediate notice to the Police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.” This delay in intimation has deprived the Opposite Party of its right to timey search the vehicle, find necessary facts related to loss, cause of theft, circumstances of theft, required to decide admissibility of the claim. Thus the claim has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 25.07.17 and the same is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party. Deficiency in service is a sine qua non for maintainability of any complaint against the answering Opposite Party.
5. That insurance is contract like any other general contract and terms of the contract are binding on both the parties. This has been the consistent view of the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that the terms of contract have to be strictly read and natural meaning be given to it. No outside aid should be sought unless the meaning is ambiguous. The insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition.
6. That the delay in intimation by the Complainant to insurance company is fatal to the claim as the same is a fundamental breach of the condition of insurance policy.

Rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties

7. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

8. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

9. The Opposite Party No.1 in support of its case has filed the affidavit of Shri Jai Shankar Sharma who is Assistant Manager of the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2 in support of its case has filed the affidavit of Shri Raghunathpawar, Administrative Officer-Legal of Opposite Party No.2 In his affidavit he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No.2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

10.  We have heard the Complainant and the Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant had an insurance policy for his vehicle bearing no. D1-5S-BU-8803 having insurance policy no. 39010231166201819951 valid from 01.08.16 to 31.07.17 with insurance claim value of Rs.32,935/-. The Complainant stated that the said vehicle was stolen on 20.06.17 and the Complainant lodged an e-FIR bearing no. 018885 dated 20.06.17. The intimation of the theft was reported to Opposite Party No.2 on 21.07.17 and the police has also filed his untraced report on 05.08.17 before concerned Hon’ble Court of Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Ld. ACMM, distt. Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.  
11. Further, it is stated by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.2 refused to pay the claim to the Complainant on the ground that he intimated the Opposite Party after 32 days of the theft of the vehicle. As per Opposite Party No.1 there is no locus standi of the Complainant to file case against them because they have only provide insurance policy of Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant and they have no role to pass or reject the claim of the Complainant. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.1. As per Opposite Party No.2 there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 in repudiating the claim of the Complainant as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy Complainant has to inform the Opposite Party immediately after the theft of the vehicle. Complainant has informed the Opposite Party about the theft of the vehicle after 32 days which is the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
12. It is noted that in the present case condition No.1 of the contract for insurance provide that notice shall be given in writing to the insurance company immediately upon the occurrence of accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim thereafter insured shall give all such information to the company and also give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in insuring the conviction of the offender. Complainant had filed FIR immediately after the theft on 20.06.17. There is admittedly delay of about 32 days in lodging the claim before the insurance company. However, insurance company did not repudiate it on the ground that it was not genuine, it has repudiated it on the ground of delay.
13. In view of the above discussion, complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.2 shall pay the insured amount on Non-Standard Basis i.e. Rs. 24,700/-(Twenty four thousand seven hundred) as 75 % of the IDV value of 32,935/- with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realization and Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment, litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
14. Order announced on 22.11.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President