Delhi

North East

cc/141/2013

Shri Ashish Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jun 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 141/13

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Ashish Aggarwal S/o Shri O.P. Aggarwal R/o:- 169-170, Gali No. 1 Chanderlok, Mandoli Road Shahdara, Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
	New Indian Assurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, E-9 Connaught House, Connaught Place Delhi-	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

29.04.2013 20.06.2020 20.06.2020

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Concise facts of the present complaint as culled out by the complainant are that the complainant was owner of Motorcycle Hero Honda Hunk 2009 Model bearing registration No. DL-13-SF-1595 Grey in Colour duly insured with OP vide policy No. 31040131100100002877 w.e.f. 30.08.2010 to 29.08.2011 and was renewed vide policy No. 31040131110100004689 w.e.f. 21.10.2011 to 20.10.2012 for a total IDV of Rs. 42,000/- against payment of premium to the tune of Rs. 895/- paid by complainant to OP1. The subject vehicle got stolen from the premises of the complainant in the intervening night of 19.02.2012 and 20.02.2012 when on the later date the complainant could not find the Motorcycle which he had parked a night before at the main gate of his house. The complainant lodged a police complaint with PS Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi on 20.02.2012 bearing FIR No. 34/2012 and sent intimation to OP on the same date. The surveyor Mr. Amit Kumar of OP visited the residence of the complainant on 02.04.2012 on which date complainant handed over all the requisite documents in lieu of which the surveyor issued an acknowledgement receipt. Both the original keys of the subject vehicle was handed over to the surveyor of OP by the complainant. Subsequently the concerned police filed its Untraced Report dated 06.03.2012 filed on 05.05.2012 in the court of MM Karkardoma. However the OP intentionally, willfully and deliberately did not pay the insured claim amount to the complainant. The complainant got legal notice dated 13.2.2013 issued to OP through his counsel for settling his theft claim but to no avail. Therefore, as a last resort the complainant filed the present complaint praying for issuance of directions against the OP to pay sum of Rs. 67,000/- (IDV with interest @ 15% p.a.), Rs. 11,000/- as litigation charges.
2. Complainant has attached copy of RC, copy of retail invoice pertaining to subject bike parts, copy of photographs of key, copy of letter dated 29.02.2012 from the investigator of OP Apex Bureau of investigation to the complainant requesting to furnish the requisite documents, copy of reminder letter dated 02.04.2012 from the said investigator to the complainant for furnishing the documents, copy of untraced report issued by SHO, PS Mansarovar Park, Shahdara Delhi and copy of order dated 05.05.2012 passed by MM Karkardooma Court Delhi on the untraced report and copy of legal notice dated 13.02.2013 with postal receipts. 

On admission stage, complainant was directed to file copy of FIR alongwith policy terms and conditions however he filed only policy schedule/cover note and was granted opportunity to file requisite documents.

3. Notice was issued to the OP on 23.07.2013. OP entered appearance and filed written statement in which while admitting the factum of insurance coverage extended to complainant with respect to the subject vehicle, took the preliminary objection that post receipt of intimation of theft from complainant on 25.02.2012, the OP vide letter dated 29.02.2012 requested him to comply with the requirement stated therein but the complainant did not do so and therefore a reminder letter dated 02.04.2012 was sent by OP to the complainant asking him to comply with the requirements as asked for. OP further submitted that to the legal notice dated 13.02.2013 by the complainant, the OP vide its reply thereto dated 22.02.2013 had requested the complainant to furnish the documents viz claim form, original FIR, letter to RTO, RC verification from RTO, attested Section 173 Cr.Pc report, original policy, copy of purchase invoice and statement of three witnesses confirming the theft. But the complainant never submitted the same documents nor did he get the RC transferred alongwith Indemnity Bond and letter of Subrogation since six months and therefore for all the above said reasons, the claim could not be processed and hence not payable and OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant who exhibited the documents relied upon as Exhibit CW1/A to CW1/P.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP reproducing the defence taken in the written statement of non-submission of requisite documents by the complainant despite repeated reminders.
6. Written arguments were filed by both the parties in reassertion of their respective grievance / defence.
7. Post completion of pleadings, on directions issued by this Forum on 13.03.2014  to the complainant to furnish certified copy of FIR and untraced report from the concerned MM. Karkardooma Court, the complainant filed the certified copy of untraced report dated 05.05.2012 in FIR No. 34/2012 on 01.12.2014. On the said date, directions were issued to the complainant to furnish Form No. 29 and 30 alongwith Indemnity Bond to the OP to enable OP to process his theft claim and the said directions were reissued on 03.03.2015 by this Forum with additional directions to the complainant to furnish all the requisite documents as asked for by OP in its letters dated 29.02.2012 and 02.04.2012 within next 15 days. The Forum directed OP to process the claim and file its report on the next date of hearing i.e. 07.05.2015. On the said date, complainant placed on record original form 29 & 30. However none appeared on behalf of OP and the said documents were handed over to OP’s counsel on his appearance on 19.01.2016. However no progress was made in terms of processing of settlement of theft claim nor OP made any submission for any further documentation required at the end of the complainant.
8. We have heard the arguments addressed by all parties and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record….

Undisputedly, the factum of insurance and theft of the subject vehicle is admitted by both the sides. However, dispute arose when no response for settlement came forth from OP for almost a year post theft intimation, appointment of surveyor and handing over of documents to him between March 2012 to March 2013 which compelled the complainant to file the present complaint in May 2013. From the correspondence placed on record by the complainant and also relied upon by OP, it is evident that an exhaustive list of documents were demanded by OP’s investigator vide the said correspondence, proof of submission / non submission of which both parties have failed to place on record. From the order sheets of this Forum between February 2014 to May 2015, directions were issued to the complainant to furnish the copy of FIR, certified copy of untraced report and submit documents viz Form No. 29&30, indemnity bond and all the documents asked for by OP vide its letter dated 29.02.2012 and reminder thereto dated 02.04.2012 to the complainant. The complainant partly complied with the said orders in May 2015 in terms of submission of Forum no. 29 & 30 which were handed over OP’s counsel on 19.01.2016. Therefore, there was delay on the part of the complainant to furnish documents from March 2012 (post theft) till May 2015.

Notwithstanding the delay on the part of complainant, we observed that OP had received documents in January 2016 but despite directions of this Forum issued on 03.03.2015 and 07.05.2015 for process of theft claim and filing of status report, OP did not act upon the same.

9. The Hon'ble National Commission in Vijay Harshad Dholkiya Vs New India Assurance Co. India Ltd. III (2018) CPJ 575 (NC) held in a case of delayed claim settlement by the insurance company which was unnecessarily delayed for want of documents and no decision was taken despite submission of claim documents and legal notice that it clearly shows lackadaisical approach of the insurance company for having failed to settle the claim for three years and upheld the order of State Commission Nagpur, Maharashtra allowing the appeal of the petitioner against dismissal of his complaint by District Forum Chandrapur. The Hon'ble National Commission in the said judgment, on perusal of several correspondences, also held the petitioner / complainant guilty of contributory negligence for not being vigilant and sincere in furnishing the documents as demanded by the surveyor and therefore did not entertain the plea of enhancement of compensation granted by State Commission and confirmed the quantum of compensation as granted by the State Commission Nagpur.
10. The Hon'ble National Commission in Narender Kumar Maheshwari Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd II (2018) CPJ 522 (NC) held Insurance Company deficient in service for inordinate delay in a case where survey was conducted after eight months of accident and payment of claim was made after two years of the date of accident and after one and half years from the date of final survey and upheld the order of District Forum Bulandshahr and UP SCDRC and the quantum of compensation paid and confirmed by both lower Fora.
11.  Having appreciated the facts of the present case, chronology and sequence of events and correspondences between both parties, it is apparent that undisputedly the theft claim which was lodged with it by the complainant in February 2012 was never repudiated by OP. The complainant claims to have already furnished the documents as asked for by OP at a much earlier stage. However, juxtaposition to the said situation, we cannot ignore reference to several correspondences sent by OP to complainant between February 2012 to and April 2012 post theft and filing of claim to which no response / reply has been placed on record by complainant except legal notice dated 13.02.2013  before filing of the present complaint. Thereafter, OP placed on record copy of reply to the legal notice dated 22.02.2013 as Annexure A with its written statement asking for documents from serial No. 1 to 8 proof of submission / non submission of which are again not on record.    Therefore, the complainant too has been rather tardy and negligent in responding to the correspondence of the OP, several of which have gone un-answered, un-responded and un-acted upon. Therefore, the said case is covered by Vijay Harshad (supra) case and observation made by Hon'ble National Commission therein. However, notwithstanding the same, the deficiency of service on the part of OP is writ large and inexplicable as the said is glaring example of gross act of omission and inaction on the part of OP for non-disbursal of the claim amount despite non repudiation of the same till date and showing complete disregard / non -compliance of directions issued by this Forum between December 2014 to May 2015 for process of theft claim and filing status report with respect thereto thereby sitting silently and laid back and due to its non-performance, the complainant was made to suffer this unnecessary litigation for almost four years from May 2015 (when complainant lastly submitted Form 29&30) till date.
12.  We therefore find OP guilty of deficiency of service and direct it to release the IDV of the stolen vehicle / the approved claim amount i.e. Rs. 42,000/-. The complainant shall furnish the requisite documents to OP as asked for vide letters dated 29.02.2012 and 02.04.2012 for completion of formalities for process of claim. We further direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental harassment inclusive of litigation charges. Let the order be complied by the OP within the 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
14.   File be consigned to record room.
15.   Announced on 20.06.2020.

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member