Delhi

East Delhi

CC/886/2013

AJAY VEER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASS. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Dec 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                                       CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC NO.886/2013
 

Sh. AJAY VEER SINGH

S/O Sh. SOHAN PAL SINGH

R/O E-64A, GOVIND PURAM

GHAZIABAD, U.P.

 

Complainant

 

Vs

 

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

10^TH FLOOR, CORE-i

SCOPE MINAR, LAXXMI NAGAR DISTRICT CENTRE

DELHI-92

 

                        

Opposite Parties

                                                                                      Date of Admission - 12/11/2013

                                                                                    Date of Order          - 25/01/2016

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the Complainant Vehicle No. U.P. 81 Z 6846 Scorpio year 2008 was insured with the Respondent for IDV of Rs.5,07,500/-. On 01/06/2011 when the Complainant was staying at his Phoopha house at Vikram Enclave Shalimar Garden Sahibabad, this vehicle was stolen and the report was lodged at Crime No. 543/2011 on 03/06/2011 at Police Station Sahibabad. After lodging the report the matter was reported to the Respondent but the Respondent has not settled the claim of the Complainant. Respondent offered a sum of Rs.3,74/675/- on non standard basis. This is illegal and amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed for the direction to the Respondent to pay Rs.5,07,500/- with 9% interest thereon as the value of the insured vehicle, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.21,000/- as cost of litigation.

            Respondent in their reply have raised the plea of Territorial jurisdiction. They have further alleged that the Complainant has not fulfill the terms and condition of the policy, the vehicle has no fitness test certificate from the registration authority as such they are only entitled to claim at the non standard basis.

            We have heard the Counsel and perused the documents on record.

            In so far as the Territorial Jurisdiction is concern suffice is to say that the policy in question was issued from their Delhi Office. The address of the Complainant is mentioned as S Triveni Appartment Jhilmil Colony, New Delhi. The claim in this case was dealt with at Lajpat Nagar District Centre Delhi and the letter dated 07/12/2012 offering Rs.3,74,625/- to the Complainant was issued from the Respondent Lajpat Nagar Office. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent decision, as such the cause of action has arisen at Delhi.

            The Respondent raised the plea that the Complaint is premature. The Counsel for the Complainant pointed out that the decision in this regard has been communicated to him vide letter dated 07/12/2012 that he is only entitled for a sum of Rs.3,74,625/- as such the plea of Respondent that Complainant is premature has no substance. We find merit in the arguments of the Complainant, the cause of action did arose as the decision was finally communicated to the Complainant for further consent and completion post claim approval, formalities. The short question which arises is as to whether the Respondent denied the Complainant the IDV value of the Vehicle on this ground that they have violated the terms and condition of the policy. The Complainant has not placed on record that he was not under obligation to get the fitness certificate from the RTO in respect of the vehicle in question and on the day of its theft the vehicle was running after obtaining the fitness certificate from the RTO concern, if the Complainant has not obtained the fitness and plying the Vehicle without fitness then the decision of the Respondent to pay to the Complainant on non standard basis cannot be said to be illegal. The decision to pay Rs.3,74,625/- in the above circumstances cannot be said to be illegal.

            We direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the amount of Rs. 3,74,625/- within 30 days from the date of this order, if it is not paid then the Complainant shall be entitled for 9% interest thereon  till it is paid. We further award Complainant Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation which shall be paid within 30 days.

Copy of this order be provided to both the parties.

 

 

(DR.P.N.TIWARI)                        (POONAM MALHOTRA)                                (N.A.ZAIDI)                                                                                                                                                    MEMBER                                       MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT