Delhi

East Delhi

CC/728/2014

VIKAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASS. - Opp.Party(s)

24 May 2018

ORDER

            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer Complaint no.      728/2014

                                                                                                   Date of Institution              13/08/2014

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               24/05/2018        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                       26/05/2018                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr , Vikas R Srivastava,  adult   

R/o- 78 D/E, Top Floor

Pocket C, Mayur Vihar II, Delhi 110091…….……...…………….Complainant

                             

                                      Vs

 

The Manager

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 

DRO II, 10^th Floor Scope Minar,  

Core I, Laxmi Nagar District Centre

Delhi 110092…………………………………….……………….……………Opponent

 

Complainant Advocate                 Mr V K Srivastava      

Opponent  Advocate                     Rajeev Sharma   

 

Quorum                                          Sh Sukhdev  Singh       President

                                                         Dr P N Tiwari                 Member

                                                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur       Member                                                                                             

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant, owner of Bajaj Pulsar 150 Black motor cycle, vide registration no. MH 14CR 4528 (Ex CW1/1) model 2011 had registration with RTO, Pune and insured with OP branch at Pune with policy tenure from 27/02/2011 to 26/02/2012 (Ex CW1/6) had taken NOC from Pune RTO and came to Delhi. He got his motorcycle reinsured from present OP vide policy no. 32030131120100012362 vide tenure from 25/02/2013 to 24/02/2014 (Ex CW1/2).

The said motor cycle was stolen from Ghaziabad on 01/01/2014 and FIR was registered on 07/01/2014 vide FIR no. 04/2014 (Ex CW1/3) and present OP was informed on 07/01/2014.

OP appointed surveyor who asked few documents which were submitted (Ex CW1/4). Despite of submission of required documents, OP had repudiated motor theft claim vide its letter dated 15/04/2014 (Ex CW1/5) stating that the said motor cycle was neither registered with Delhi RTO nor OP was intimated immediately after the loss (01/01/2014) as per the terms and conditions of the two wheeler insurance policy. Seeing callous attitude of OP sent legal notice on 07/08/2014 (Ex CW1/7&8). When no satisfactory reply was received, filed this complaint and claimed cost of the vehicle a sum of Rs 46,900/-and compensation for harassment for a sum of Rs 50,000/-.   

Notice was served. OP submitted written statement and denied all allegations of deficiency in their services. OP admitted that the said motorcycle was registered at Pune RTO and after taking NOC from Pune, complainant shifted to Delhi. His vehicle was insured by OP vide policy no. 32030131120100012362 from 25/02/2013 5PM to 24//02/2014 11.59PM which was on record. The said vehicle got theft on 01/01/2014 vide FIR no. 4/2014 dated 07/01/2014 from Ghaziabad and complainant informed OP on 07/01/2014 after the gap of 6 days. Theft claim case was registered as a theft case and appointed surveyor and on his report (Ex OPW1/2, 2A (I &ii), claim was repudiated with remark as no original RC was submitted and had 6 days delay in intimating the loss to present OP and police which clearly violates policy terms and condition 1 of Two Wheeler Package Policy (Ex Anne. A, B, C & D) and also violated the Section 39 and 40 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988.

It was also stated that complainant had not registered his vehicle at Delhi RTO and was plying for over 2 years and 4 months. Hence repudiation of theft claim was justified and there was no deficiency in their services.  

Complainant did not file his rejoinder, but filed evidence on affidavit and reaffirmed on oath himself that replies submitted by the OP were wrong and he had complied all the requirements of claim with OP. Complainant also submitted that he had intimated OP on 07/01/2014 after getting his FIR registered. Police had submitted untraced report. It was also denied that no original RC, FIR, Insurance policy was not submitted to OP whereas all the documents were on record.  Hence his genuine claim may be paid.  

OP also submitted their evidence on affidavit through Mrs Kavita Jain, AO with OP and reaffirmed on oath that all the facts and evidence were true and correct and on record.

OP also submitted their written arguments supporting their repudiation based on the terms and condition of the policy and as per the laws laid down in various citations as Narinder Singh vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in CA 8463/2014 where Sections 39 and 40 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 were applicable and complainant had violated the applicability of such sections and repudiation was justified. Also in IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pratap Bhagwan Patil, RP 4622/2013, NC where non registering vehicle with local RTO violates policy terms and conditions, so repudiation was justified.   

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels and after perusal of file order was reserved.

After going through all the facts and evidences on record, it was observed that the rejection of theft claim by OP was justified as per terms and conditions of the policy which was clear violation of the policy terms by not intimating OP immediately and police for loss. Informing OP after the delay of 6 days gives suspicion of loss where his policy was in force and from whom claim was to be taken. Registering FIR after the 6 days of loss on 07/01/2014 and giving intimation to OP on 07/01/2014 clearly violated policy conditions. OP had appointed surveyor on the same day and theft claim was repudiated under policy conditions and Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Thus rejection by OP was justified.

Hence, we come to the conclusion that complainant had failed in establishing the deficiency of OP and this complaint has no merit so the same deserve to be dismissed, so dismissed without cost.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulations and file be consigned to Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                 Mrs  Harpreet Kaur  Member                                               

                                      

                                                  Shri  Sukhdev Singh  President