DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

  C.C. NO. 555/2016

Date of Institution: 18.10.2016

Judgment Reserved on: 18.12.2023

Judgment Passed on: 18.12.2023

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Judgment By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment the Commission shall dispose of the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency by the OP repudiating his claim with respect to his stolen vehicle.
2. Brief facts stated by the complainant in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a two wheeler having Registration No. DL-7S-BZ-0202 and the same was insured from 07.12.2014 to 06.12.2015 vide Policy No. 32320231140100005399 and he paid premium of Rs.1779/-, however when the vehicle was parked in front of his house on 09.09.2015 the same was stolen by someone/unknown person at about 11.45 p.m.  and he accordingly immediately informed the police and lodged an FIR on 10.09.2015 itself and also informed the OP and thereafter he also deposited all the required documents with the OP’s office but OP did not persue his claim which lead the complainant to file the present complaint case before this Commission seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.79596/- with compensation Rs.10000/- and legal expenses Rs.5000/-.
3. The OP was served and has filed its reply taking preliminary objection that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, the complainant is not a consumer of the OP, proceeding as initiated by the complaint are without any jurisdiction, the present dispute does not fall within the definition of services, the present complaint is flagrant abuse of the process of law and is vexatious and frivolous and therefore be dismissed.
4. On merit it is informed that the complainant did not inform the OP immediately nor gave any written information with respect to the theft of the alleged vehicle which is in-violation of the terms and condition of the policy, where it is specifically written that the complainant has to inform the insurance company within 72 hours of the incident but in this matter there were 27 days delay in informing the OP and therefore since there is violation of the terms and condition of the policy the claim was liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that claimant was duty bound to take appropriate steps to safeguard his vehicle but in this matter he was negligent and has parked the motorcycle on the road without any safety measures therefore the complaint is liable is to be dismissed. However, the complainant had a policy he had paid a premium, the vehicle was stolen, information thereof was given to OP, although late, information to the police was given, claim was filed and the same was rejected by OP are not disputed facts.
5. The complainant has filed his own evidence by way of affidavit whereas OP has filed evidence of Smt. Kavita Jain, Administrative Officer. Both the parties have relied upon their pleadings Commission has heard the arguments and peruse the record.
6. The whole issue which revolves around in this claim is whether mere delay information by the complainant to the OP with respect to the stolen vehicle permits the OP to reject the claim of complainant, as all other aspect are not disputed. Law on this aspect by now is no more res-Integra and is settled. In Jaina Construction Co. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Civil Appeal No.1069 of 2022 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.02.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically covered this issue and in that case with information given by the complainant to the insurance Co. was after 5 months. The Hon’ble District Forum allowed the claim on non standard basis which order was confirmed by the Hon’ble HCDRC, Haryana, but on appeal the Hon’ble NCDRC accepted the appeal of insurance company and dismissed the complainant where after the complainant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court set-aside the order of the Hon’ble NCDRC and confirmed the order of Hon’ble HCDRC as passed by District Forum.
7. In this matter the facts are exactly similar. The complainant even has given an affidavit to the OP to settle the claim on non standard basis which is date 01.03.2016 and since the matter was not settled by OP, the complainant was filed on 27.10.2016. The OP despite having received this letter/ affidavit has not settled the matter. Therefore, there is a gross deficiency on the part of OP. The OP was not supposed to reject the claim in toto, but has not settled the matter even on non standard basis i.e. to the extent of 75% of the IDV.
8. The Commission therefore hereby finds that OP is liable to pay exemplanary compensation to the complainant as despite having huge legal team and despite being aware of the settled preposition of law and despite having taken the affidavit from complainant it rejected the claim.
9. The Commission therefore hereby the orders the OP would pay the amount of Rs.59697/- i.e. the 75% amount of  Rs.79596/- with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization alongwith compensation of Rs.20000/- and legal expenses Rs.5000/-.
10. This whole amount is payable within 30 days failing which this amount would carry the interest the @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till is actually paid.   
    Copy of the order be supplied/sent to all the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 18.12.2023.