Delhi

East Delhi

CC/301/2014

ANISH SHRIVASTAVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASS. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  301/14

 

Shri Amish Srivastava

S/o Virender Kumar

SA-165(B), Shastri Nagar

Ghaziabad – 201 001                                                   ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited

10^th Floor, Core-1, Scope Minar

Laxmi Nagar, District Center

Delhi – 110 092                                                               ….Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 22.04.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 11.07.2017

Judgment Passed on: 12.07.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Amish Srivastava against the New India Assurance Company Limited (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant was the owner of Maruti Zen (colour M-Gold, Make – 2002) car bearing No. HR-26-P-5580, Chasis No.l 611344, Engine No. 168726.  He insured the same with the New India Assurance Company Limited (OP) vide policy no. 3203 0131 1101 0001 0431 for a period of one year from 31.01.2012 to 30.01.2013 against the premium of Rs. 2,632/-.  The IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 95,000/-.  On 29.04.2012, at about 12.30 noon, brother of the complainant found that the car was missing from outside his house.  A written complaint about the theft was given in the concerned police station.  FIR No. 353/12 under Section 379 IPC was registered by police station Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad on 30.04.2013 at about 11.15 a.m.  The insurance policy, which was in the dashboard of the car also got stolen alongwith the car.

          It is further stated that the complainant was abroad at the time of theft.  He contacted OP at its customer care to get the particulars of insurance policy, but they could not provide any help and directed to contact the agent.  He contacted OP’s agent Mr. Haresh Sagar and informed about theft, who miscommunicated that the policy was only third party policy and not a comprehensive or theft policy.  The complainant had no reason to disbelieve the agent of OP.  Untrace/closure report dated 29.07.2012 was submitted in the concerned court of law. 

          In the month of January 2013, complainant received a phone call from the office of OP for renewal of insurance policy for his Zen car.  He was shocked to know from the caller of OP that the policy was expiring on 30.01.2013 and it was not a third party insurance policy, but it covered claim on account of theft as well. 

          In the last week of Feb. 2013, the complainant approached the OP’s branch at Dilshad Garden, filled the claim form and handed over to Mr. M.M. Ahuja, Senior Branch Manager, as advised.  The complainant gave detailed explanation about delay and did all needful as directed by Mr. Ahuja.  Thereafter, the surveyor of OP visited the complainant and sought several documents, which the complainant provided. 

          The complainant was shocked to know that Laxmi Nagar office of OP repudiated the claim on flimsy and arbitrary grounds vide its letter dated 29.08.2013.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for direction to OP to pay an amount of Rs. 95,000/- being the sum assured alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of theft ;         Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation  for harassment, mental torture and agony and Rs. 22,000 towards litigation cost.   

3.       In the written statement, filed by OP, it is admitted that the vehicle was insured with OP for the period from 31.01.2012 to 30.01.2013.  They have taken various pleas such as the complainant contacted OP regarding the theft of the alleged vehicle first time on 12.03.2013, after about more than a year; the complainant has not fulfilled the mandatory requirement relating to the claim and the complainant himself was negligent and violated the terms and conditions of the policy.   It is further submitted that this Forum have no territorial jurisdiction as the policy issuing office is situated in Shahdara.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.       The complainant in his rejoinder to the Written Statement has controverted the pleas made in the written statement and has reasserted his pleas made in the complaint.

5.       In support of its case, the complainant has examined himself on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as original complaint (Ex.CW-1/1), copy of registration certificate (Ex.CW-1/2), policy schedule cum certificate of insurance (Ex.CW-1/3), copy of written intimation to policy on 29.04.2012 (Ex.CW-1/4), copy of FIR and its nakal tehreer ((Ex.CW-1/5 & 6), copy of passport showing immigration stamp (Ex.CW-1/7), visiting card given by Mr. Ahuja to the complainant (Ex.CW-1/8), letter dated 12.03.2013 alongwith claim form and other documents (Ex.CW-1/9 colly.), copy of untrace report (Ex.CW-1/10), letter no. BRS/09/11-12 dated nil (Ex.CW-1/11), copy of letter dated 25.03.2013 to RTO (Ex.CW-1/12), requirement of verification of registration certificate (Ex.CW-1/13) and repudiation letter dated 29.08.2013 (Ex.CW-1/14).

          In defence, OP have examined Shri Shiv Dayal, Sr. Divisional Manager, who have deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited intimation letter (Ex.RW1/1) and repudiation letter (Ex.RW1/2).

6.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that there has been delay in intimation to the insurance company as it was informed after 11 months and 19 days from the date of incident i.e. 29.04.2012. 

          It was further argued that the complainant himself was negligent as it was parked at wrong place.  Further, it was used by brother of the complainant and no proper attention was given to look after it. 

          On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have argued that there was no delay in informing the insurance company as the complainant was out of India and he was not sure as to whether the vehicle was insured for theft.  When he came to know, he filed the complaint alongwith intimation letter on 12.03.2013.  He has also argued that the police was informed immediately on 30.04.2012. 

          To appreciate the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the documents placed on record.  Firstly, the documents in respect of intimation given by the complainant to the insurance company is looked into.  This document is Ex.RW1/1, which shows that the intimation to the insurance company was given on 18.03.2013, though the vehicle was stolen on 29.04.2012.  No doubt, the law is well settled that the insurance company has to be informed immediately, but if the matter has been reported to the police, the delay in informing to the insurance company cannot be a ground for repudiation of the claim. 

          In the present case, the complainant has stated that he was away from the country and he was not aware as to whether his policy covered the theft or not.  He has stated that he came to know about this fact when he was informed by the insurance company for renewal of the policy.  The only plea, which has been taken on behalf of the complainant has been that he was not aware as to whether his vehicle was covered for theft or not.  This fact has come to his knowledge when he was informed for renewal of the policy.  All the documents including the insurance policy was in the vehicle itself, which was stolen.  The fact that the complainant was not having the insurance policy with him and was not aware as to whether his vehicle was covered for theft or not and he came to know when he got the intimation for renewal of the policy, his, this plea has to be accepted as the complainant, who have purchased the vehicle just three months before the date of theft will not sit idle to inform the company.  When he has informed the police authorities, his not informing to the insurance company should not come in the way of repudiation of his claim.  Therefore, repudiation of his claim on the ground of delay in informing the insurance company was not justified on the facts of this case.  Thus, the repudiation of his claim on unjustified ground amounts to deficiency in service on the part of insurance company.  Other arguments of Ld. Counsel for OP have no force.  Thus, they stand rejected.   

          The fact that the IDV value of the vehicle was Rs. 95,000/-.  the insurance company is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 90,000/- to the complainant towards the insurance claim.  Further, the insurance company is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation, which includes the cost of litigation also.

          This order be complied within a period of 45 days. If not complied, the total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs.90,000 + Rs.10,000) shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the case. 

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                          President