Delhi

East Delhi

CC/46/2013

RAJIV CHAWLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

25 Feb 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC. NO-46/13

IN THE MATTER OF:
RAJIV CHAWLA

S/O SH. JAGDISH CHAWLA

R/O-359/A BHOLA NATH NAGAR

SHAHDARA DELHI-110032                               

Complainant

Vs

1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

(THROUGH ITS MANAGER/AR/DIRECTOR)

DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE-1

124 CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, LEVEL IV

TOWER II JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING

NEW DELHI-110001.

 

2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

(THROUGH ITS MANAGER/AR/DIRECTOR)

OFFICE AT KOLKATA DIVISION XV,

NATIONAL INSURANCE BUILDING 1^ST FLOOR,

8 INDIA EXCHANGE PLACE, KOLKATA-700001.

 

                                                                                                             Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                   DATE OF ADMISSION-21/01/2013

                                                                                 DATE OF ORDER        -10/08/2015

ORDER

SH. N.A.ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant got insured a TATA Safari vehicle DL-3C-AX-0909, with the OP vide policy No.15010031116100018676 for the period from 07/07/2011 till 06/07/2012. The said vehicle was stolen in the morning on 01/02/2012 from outside the godown of the complainant at C-30, Kanti Nagar Main Road, Delhi. A FIR was lodged at the concerned Police Station, Krishna Nagar vide FIR No.36 dated 01/02/2012. The intimation was sent to the OP Company through letter dated 05/02/2012 through courier service at their Calcutta address. The surveyor of the OP Mr. Sushil Kumar on 28/08/2012 asked for the CD of the footage recorded by the CCTV. The CD was sent to the investigator and also to the police station vide letter dated 11/09/2012, it was informed by Mr. Sushil Kumar that the CD is not opening. The complainant was surprised to know that CD is not opening when it was sent in complete working condition after checkup. Legal notice was also sent but no reply was given by the OP. The complainant has prayed for the insured value of the vehicle that is RS.2,96,400/-, compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.50,000/-.

            OP filed their reply wherein the insurance of the vehicle is admitted. It is alleged that the intimation was not given to the OP in time and they were deprived their right to trace the vehicle and It is the breach of terms & conditions of the policy. The policy holder of the said vehicle from 09/03/2010 to 08/03/2011 was Mr. Jagdish Lal Chawla who was expired on 26/10/2009. The conduct of the complainant is highly fraudulent and mischievous. The complainant flouted the terms and conditions of the vehicle by leaving the vehicle unattended. The surveyor after making the enquiry found that Mr. Jagdish Lal Chawla was the second owner of the vehicle in question. The CCTV camera footage was not provided, there is a variation of the time of the theft and relevant documents were not provided as such. The claim is liable to be dismissed.

            Both the parties have filed on record their respective evidence.

            Heard and perused the record.

            The fact of this vehicle being insured on the date of the incident is not in dispute. The insurance policy under which this vehicle was insured was admittedly in the name of Sh. Rajiv Chawla, the period of insurance is also not in dispute. The OP has taken the plea of suppression of material facts and false information of the fact that this vehicle was earlier insured in the name of Sh. Jagdish Lal Chawla from 09/03/2010 to 08/03/2011 and he expired on 26/10/2009 & this amount to fraudulent and mischievous conduct. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the OP. On the date of the incident, this vehicle was registered and insured in the name of the complainant and not in the name of the deceased Sh. Jagdish Lal Chawla. The policy lapsed on 08/03/2011. The earlier transaction between the two is not relevant for the purpose of the present complaint and the transaction between the parties. OP has insured this vehicle in the name of Sh. Rajive Chawla from 07/07/2011 to 06/07/2012. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that it is the case of suppression of material facts or mischievous conduct. In these circumstances, the judgment cited by the OP in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India VS Permanent Lok Adalat and Anr. by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court decided on 17/10/2008 has no applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case. The complainant has an insured vehicle, as such the plea raised by the insurance company is devoid of any merit. It is an admitted fact that the First Information Report in this case was lodged on 01/02/2012 at 11.50 hours & as per the FIR the vehicle is said to have been stolen prior to 5.00 am. The police have recorded the time of appearance at 4.00 am if we look to the contents of the information given by the complainant he has not given any specific time of its theft but the absence of the vehicle on spot was noticed at 5.00 am. It has been argued that there is variation in the time of theft as disclosed to the investigator and in police report from the entire record. We don’t find any variation and the statement of the complainant and as in FIR. They have categorically stated that it is at 5.00am when they came to know regarding the theft of the vehicle. The OP has taken the plea that intimation was not given to the insurance company as such they have been deprived of their right to trace the vehicle. Their contention is flouted by the documents of Annex.3 through which the intimation was given to the Calcutta office which was basically responsible for insurance of this vehicle as it is clear from the address noted on Annexure R-1. The investigation was thoroughly conducted by the police and in the case of theft which is a cognizable offence, police is duty bound to investigate the content of the FIR. The OP has admitted the receipt of intimation letter dated 29/12/2011. The complainant has specifically said that they provided the CD of CCTV footage vide letter dated 15/11/2012. This fact was repeatedly emphasized that the CD was working fine and investigator was asked to view on any computer, if it is not being played on his system. The CD was also provided to the investigating officer of the police. The plea of the OP that the vehicle was left unattended cannot be accepted when it is clear from the record that is under the surveillance of the close circuit TV.  The plea of the breach of the terms & conditions could be of importance if the FIR was not lodged promptly, CCTV footage shows that the vehicle being taken away from the spot is all important evidence of theft.

            In these circumstances there is no deprivation of the right of the OP, if the OP does not appoint the investigator for such a pretty long time, the fault lies at their own side. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the OP on this ground that the intimation was not given on the date of the incident is wholly unjustified. This complaint deserves to be allowed. The OP is directed to pay to the complainant the insured value of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 2,96,400/- with 9% p.a. interest thereon from the date of the filing this complaint till the amount is finally paid. From the documents filed on record it is clear that the OP has a mindset to deny claims & it caused tremendous anxiety in the mind of the complainant. He has been traumatized and a lot of mental pain has been caused to him by first not deciding his claim within the prescribed period and thereafter rejecting the claim on frivolous ground. He needs to be compensated for it. We allow Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant which shall also include the cost of litigation. If this amount not paid within 45 days from the date of the order, the complainant shall be entitled for 9% p.a. interest over this amount also.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

 

SUBHASH GUPTA                          POONAM MALHOTRA                      N.A.ZAIDI

      (MEMBER)                                          (MEMBER)                                  (PRESIDENT)