Delhi

North East

CC/57/2019

Dr. V.B. Gautam - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 57/19

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Dr.V.B Gautam R/o B-218(G-1), Shalimar Garden Main, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad-201005	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	Manager New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Zulfe Bengal, G.T Road Delhi-110095     General Manager/ Principal Officer, New India Insurance Co. Ltd. 87,M.G Road Fort, Mumbai-400001	Opposite Party No.1     Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:  JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: DATE OF ORDER:

02.05.19 23.02.23 24.05.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Ms.Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant bought a scooty bearing registration no. DL5S BD4170 Chassis no. 481768 and engine no. 480700. The vehicle in question was insured with Opposite Party company vide policy no. 32030131160100004897 for the period from 19.09.16 to 18.09.17 with the IDV value of Rs. 29,000/-. The Complainant stated that the said vehicle got stolen on 16.07.17 and the Complainant lodged complaint at nearby police post on 18.07.17 and also lodge online complaint and thereafter FIR was lodged on 18.08.17 and the intimation of theft was given to Opposite Party company. The Complainant handed over all requisite documents to surveyor appointed by Opposite Party company and receipt of these documents was acknowledged by Opposite Party company. The Complainant received letter from Opposite Party company asking two more documents by Complainant. The Complainant stated that he sends those two documents to Opposite Party company and thereafter despite repeated letters Opposite Party failed to settle the claim of Complainant. Hence this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to release the claim of the vehicle in question and he also prayed for compensation.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Parties stated that the Complainant’s vehicle registration no. DL5S BD4170 was insured with the Opposite Party vide policy no.32030131160100004897w.e.f. 19.09.16 to 18.09.17 on certain terms and conditions which are the part and parcel of the policy.
3. That on scrutiny of claim documents, the Opposite Party found that there is 27 days delay (the vehicle was stated to have been allegedly stolen on 16.07.17 and the intimation to the insurance co. was given only on 13.08.17) in intimation to the Opposite Party about alleged theft which tantamount to the breach of the policy conditions no. 1.
4. That in the light of various judgment (passed by Hon’ble National Commission in case no. 321/2005 titled as New India Assurance Co. Vs. Trilochan Jane and in another case titled United India Insurance Co. vs. Jogendra Singh) and clause no. 1 of the policy, the Opposite Party repudiates the claim. Clause no. 1 read as follows:

“Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every latter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forward to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal injury in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under the policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the co. and shall co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.”

5. The Opposite Party denied that correspondence of Complainant was not replied. It is submitted that it is the Opposite Party who requested again and again to explain why the claim should not be closed as “No Claim” for the above reason but the Complainant failed to give any satisfactory reply. It is submitted that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Opposite Party closed his claim as No Claim.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

8. In order to prove its case, Opposite Partieshave filed affidavit of Ms.PrabhaMalhotra, Manager of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Parties have been supported.

 

 

Arguments & Conclusion

9. We have heard theComplainant and Counsel forOpposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that he was owner of the scooty which was insured with the Opposite Party to the period cover from 19.07.16 to 18.09.17, the same was stolen on 16.07.17 and Complainant lodged a complaint at the nearby police post and also lodged online complaint and thereafter FIR was lodged on 18.08.17 and the intimation of theft was given to the Opposite Party. The Complainant handed over all the requisite documents to the surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party along with two additional documents which was asked by the Opposite Party. Opposite Party failed to settle the claim of the Complainant. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party admitted that Complainant was having a valid policy at the time of theft of the vehicle. Opposite Party is not disputing the fact of theft of the vehicle. Opposite Party rejected the claim of the Complainant on the ground that there was delay of 27 days of giving intimation to the insurance company. As per evidence submitted by the Complainant on finding out of theft of vehicle he immediately approached nearby policy post and run pillar to post for lodging FIR for which he was succeed only on 18.08.17. The Complainant tried to call Opposite Party on the helpline no. and also tried to send email on email ID given on the insurance letter, which was found defunct by the Complainant. Then, the Complainant took up the matter with the higher authority of the Opposite Party by email only after that complaint was registered and claim no. give to the Complainant. After that the Complainant sent all requisite documents to the Opposite Party. In our opinion, there is no fault lies on the part of Complainant in the delay as mentioned by Opposite Party for closing the claim as “No Claim”. The Complainant is a senior citizen and it is also admitted by the Opposite Party that vehicle was stolenwithin the valid period of the policy. The untraced report was also filed by the Complainant.
10. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed.The Opposite Partiesare directedto payjointly or severally the IDV of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs. 29,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Parties are further directed to payjointly or severallyRs. 20,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
11. Order announced on 24.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President