DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1448/2014
D.No.____________________ Dated: ___________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. JAGESH KISHORE GUPTA,
S/o SH. PURAN CHAND AGGARWAL,
R/o C-3/108, SECTOR-11,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
2. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD.,
NDPL HOUSE, HUDSON LINES,
KINGSWAY CAMP, DELHI-110009.… COMPLAINANT (s)
Versus
NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD.,
(THROUGH THE BRANCH MANAGER),
DIVISION No.-19, LAXMI TOWER,
2ND FLOOR, C-1/3, NAINI WALA BAGH,
AZADPUR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
DELHI-110033. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 28.11.2014
Date of decision:01.09.2018
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant no. 1 is working as AGM with the
CC No. 1448/2014 Page 1 of 8
complainant no. 2 at Sector-3 Rohini, Delhi and is residing at above said address and purchased a car Maruti Swift with registration no. DL-9CP-8834, model Swift LXI BS3, year of manufacture-01/2007, chassis no. MA3EKE41S00205519, engine no. GI3BBN343057, colour-Silver & insurance certificate no. 360800/31/12/6100004131 from D.D. Motor, Mayapuri, Delhi in 2007. The complainant further alleged that the complainant no. 2 is the holder of policy no. 360800/31/12/6100004131 valid from 15.02.2013 to 14.02.2014 for private car and the insured declared value (IDV) of the car is Rs.2,10,000/- and the complainant no. 1 is a beneficiary of the said policy. Thereafter, the registration certificate is changed in the name of the complainant no. 1 i.e. Jagesh Kishore Gupta and the complainant no. 1 is paying the premium of the insurance policy of the said car and the said payment of premium amount of insurance of the said car are shown in bank statements of the complainant no. 1. On 17.09.2013 at about 19:30 hrs, the complainant no. 1 parked the said car near his residence, near MCD Primary School in front of plot no. C-3/106, Sec-11. Rohini. Delhi and on the same day at about 22:20 hrs., the car was found missing and after searching for the car in the nearby areas, a call to the Police Control Room was made by the complainant no. 1 and the said theft was reported and a written
CC No. 1448/2014 Page 2 of 8
complaint was also filed on the same day to the SHO, Prashant Vihar, Delhi and pursuant to the complaint filed by the complainant no. 1 FIR no. 516 dated 30.09.2013 u/s 379 of IPC was registered at police station, Prashant Vihar, Delhi. On 18.09.2013, the complainant no. 1 reported the theft of the said car to OP. Upon investigation, the police filed its untrace report dated 24.11.2013 u/s 173 of CrPC, 1973 and the said untrace report was accepted by the Court of MM, Rohini, Delhi vide an order dated 01.05.2014 and upon closure of the case by filing of untrace report, the complainant no. 1 sent a claim for the said car to OP alongwith the claim form dated 01.04.2014 and all the requisite documents required thereunder. The complainant further alleged that by its letter dated 02.06.2014, OP illegally refused the claim of the complainant no. 1 on the grounds that the complainant no. 1 has no privity of contract with OP as the complainant failed to apply for transfer of policy in his name with OP and the complainant no. 2, by virtue of transfer of registration of the said car in the name of the complainant no. 1 lost the insurable interest in the said car and the denial of the claim of the complainant no. 1 is completely illegal, wrong and without any basis. The complainant further alleged that the complainant no. 1 applied for name change in the insurance policy and complainant no. 2 vide its letter dated 09.07.2013 addressed to OP, applied for transfer of insurance policy of the said
CC No. 1448/2014 Page 3 of 8
car in the name of the complainant no. 1 and OP took no steps pursuant to the said letter to transfer the insurance cover for the said car in the name of the complainant no. 1and that any delay on part of OP in order to effectuate the transfer of the said policy does not entitle OP to repudiate any claim made under policy. The complainant no. 1 further alleged that the transfer of certificate of insurance is governed by Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and transfer of policy is independent of the privity of contract between the parties and OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant no. 1 and the claim raised by the complainant no. 1 cannot be repudiated by OP and the complainant accordingly alleged that repudiation of the rightful claim by the OP amounts to deficiency in service.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint praying for direction to the OP to release the genuine theft claim of Rs.2,10,000/- of the said car of the complainant no. 1 with 24 % p.a. for delay from the date of submission of claim i.e. 01.04.2014 till date of realization of amount as well as compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony & pain and has also sought Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.
3. OP has been contesting the complaint and has filed written statement wherein the OP submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complaint is not maintainable and
CC No. 1448/2014 Page 4 of 8
there is no merit in the complaint and is liable to be dismissed. OP further submitted that as per the investigation got conducted by OP, the complainant no. 1 was not having any insurable interest over the vehicle in question as the vehicle was found registered in the name of the complainant no. 1 at the time of loss while the insurance policy was in the name of the complainant no. 2 i.e. NDPL as on the date of alleged theft the complainant no. 1 got the registration certificate of the vehicle transferred in his name on 15.05.2013 i.e. four months before the alleged theft dated 15.09.2013 but he did not take any step for transfer of the insurance policy. OP further submitted that the complainant did not comply with Sec. 157 of the Motor Vehicle Act as well as General Regulations, hence, the company is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
4. The complainant no. 1 filed rejoinder and denied the submissions of OP.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant no. 1 filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed the written arguments. The complainant no. 1 also placed on record copy of insurance policy no. 360800/31/12/6100004131 for the period from 15.02.2013 to 14.02.2014, copy of registration certificate, copy of vehicle particulars issued by State Transport Department, copies of detailed
CC No. 1448/2014 Page 5 of 8
statement dated 31.01.2011, 20.02.2012 & 17.02.2013 issued by ICICI Bank, copy of FIR dated 17.09.2013, copy of letter dated 17.09.2013 written by the complainant no. 1 to the SHO, P.S. Prashant Vihar, Delhi, copy of FIR no. 516 dated 30.09.2013, copy of e-mail communication between the parties, copy of untrace report, copy of letter dated 01.04.2014 sent by the complainant no. 1 to OP, copy of Motor Claim Form, copy of Pollution Under Control Certificate, copy of job card retail invoice dated 28.07.2013 issued by Maruti Services Masters, copy of letter dated nil sent by the complainant no. 1 to the RTO office, copy of letter dated 02.06.2014 sent by OP to the complainant no. 1 and copy of letter dated 09.07.2013 sent by the complainant no. 2 to OP.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of OP Sh. V.D. Mathur, Senior Divisional Manager of OP filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per the written statement filed by the OP. OP has also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant no. 1 as well as OP in the light of evidence and documents placed on record. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The registration certificate of the car, pollution under control certificate are in the name of the complainant prior to the date of alleged theft. Moreover, the complainant has also placed on record and has
CC No. 1448/2014 Page 6 of 8
proved the letter dated 09.07.2013 written by Tata Power DDL to OP to transfer insurance policy of Maruti Swift car bearing registration no. DL-9CP-8834 in the name of the complainant and this letter has been received by the OP. But OP has failed to take any action on the said letter of Tata Power DDL for transfer of insurance policy in the name of the complainant.
8. Thus, there appears to be no merits in the defence of OP. In these circumstances, this forum is of opinion that OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant and is accordingly held guilty of deficiency in service.
9. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct the OP as under:
-
ii) To pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant.
-
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CC No. 1448/2014 Page 7 of 8
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 1stday of September, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 1448/2014 Page 8 of 8
