DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.71/2017

QUORUM:

Order By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

JUDGMENT

By present order the Commission would be disposing off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of OP in repudiating his insurance claim of stolen vehicle. 

1. It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased a new Auto Rickshaw (TSR) bearing temporary registration UP14/C(T229) on 03.08.2015 which was insured by OP for IDV of Rs.1,39,939/- for a period from 03.08.2015 to 02.08.2016.  Complainant further submits that on 08.08.2015 at about 11:45 PM the said Auto Rickshaw (TSR) was stolen by some unknown person and complainant intimated about the same to the Police on 09.08.2015 vide complaint diary number 16A with Police Station New Ashok Nagar and general entry was made for the same.  Thereafter, an e-FIR bearing number 012813/2015 was also registered on 12.09.2015.  Complainant has also informed to OP on 12.08.2015and a surveyor was appointed by OP who has got all the formalities completed from the complainant and received all the required documents.  Complainant submits that on 26.10.2016, an untraced report given by Ld. ACMM (East) KKD Court was also submitted by the complainant to the OP, however, despite fulfilling all the requirements to get the insurance claim, the OP has not released the insurance amount to the complainant.  Complainant had visited OP’s office several times but to no avail.  The legal notice dated 16.01.2017 was also not replied by OP.  Complainant submits that OP provided an e-mail copy of their internal conversation with the complainant by which he came to know that his claim was repudiated by the OP on baseless grounds without any justification.  It is further stated that OP has not fulfilled his legal obligations and has been deficient in its service which caused him mental agony and harassment as his claim was genuine and praying for release of the insurance claim as per the insurance policy terms i.e. Rs.1,39,939/- being IDV of the vehicle along with 18% interest and compensation for harassment, mental agony, loss of time and loss of earning etc. 
2. Upon Notice OP appeared and filed its written statement admitting the issuance of the policy to the complainant and submits that at the time of theft of the stolen vehicle, the vehicle was not registered and as per Motor Vehicle Act 1988 nobody can drive the vehicle without registration number.  OP further submits that theft took place on 08.08.2015 and FIR was lodged on 12.09.2015 i.e. with the delay of 1 month and 3 days and states that the engine and chassis numbers are not same as per the insurance policy and further the FIR was not lodged of the vehicle which was insured by the OP.  OP further submits that complainant failed to fulfill the claim formalities and has been negligent by not intimating about the theft of the vehicle in question to the Police as well as to the OP within stipulated time and to hide his negligence, the entire story has been cooked and present complaint is filed against OP.  OP submits that as per terms and conditions of the policy the intimation should be given within 48 hours of the vehicle but complainant intimated OP after 3 days of theft on 12.08.2015.  OP denied having received any legal notice from complainant and submits that present case invokes complicated question of facts and laws and the same cannot be decided in the summary trial and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on its part as it was the complainant who failed to discharge his duty.  OP further submits that complainant is not the Consumer under CPA and prays for dismissal of the complaint as the same has been filed by the complainant for unlawful gain. 
3. Both the parties have filed their respective evidence supported by documents.
4. In support of his case Complainant has filed copy of the purchase bill, copy of the insurance policy, copy of the hand written intimation application to Police Station New Ashok Nagar, copy of untraced report, copy of legal notice along with postal receipts, address and ID proof of the Complainant. 
5. OP has not filed any documents in support of its case. 
6. The Commission has heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the documents placed on record.      
7. The Policy has been issued by the OP on payment of the premium of Rs.5,308/- and total amount paid as per schedule of premium is Rs.6,078/- for the insurance of his vehicle with IDV of Rs.1,39,939/- duly received by the OP and issuance of the policy established that complainant is the Consumer under CPA. 
8. The contention of the OP that the present case involves complicated question of facts and laws and cannot be decided in the summary proceedings is not well found as on one side OP alleged that the vehicle’s engine and chassis numbers are not same for which insurance policy was issued , on the other side takes plea that complainant not intimated it immediately, but has not filed any document to establish that insurance policy is issued with different chasis number and engine number.  The insurance policy filed by the complainant matches with the chassis and engine number as mentioned by the complainant in his complaint.  Moreover, the untraced report dated 26.10.2016 issued by Ld. ACMM (East) KKD Courts has mentioned the same engine and chassis number as mentioned in the insurance policy issued by OP. Even the purchase bill dated 03.08.2015 filed by the complainant show the same engine and chassis number for which insurance policy was issued by the OP. Therefore, the contention of the OP turned out to be false and not in terms of the documents issued by it.  The OP has also not provided any other engine and chassis number to show that it has issued insurance policy to that number only.  Rather, OP has stated that repudiation of the claim was done by it due to delayed information given to it and not fulfilling all the formalities by the complainant and not on the ground of mis-representation or cheating on the part of the complainant in providing engine and chassis numbers. 
9. Further, this is a matter of record that vehicle has been stolen after 5 days of its purchase on 08.08.2015 and a temporary registration number was allotted to it at the time of purchase which is issued by the authority  in terms of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and is valid for a period of one month.  This is  also matter of record that intimation to the Police was given on 09.08.2015 under diary number 16A duly received by Police Station New Ashok Nagar immediately after the theft, though e-FIR was lodged on 12.09.2015.  Intimation to OP was given admittedly on 12.08.2015.  It is well settled that the delay occurred in informing the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft of the vehicle is not fatal if the Police was intimated immediately and does not disentitled claimant of the Insurance claim.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurshinder Singh V/s Sh. Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. and another, reported in 2020 (11) SCC 612 as held as follows:    

20. “We, therefore, hold that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in the intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.” 

10. The same has been followed in Jaina Construction Company V/s Oriental Insurance Company Civil Appeal No.1069/2022 in its order dated 11.02.2022. 
11. In the instant case also the Police was intimated immediately on the next date of the occurrence of the theft of the vehicle by the complainant and the untraced report was also issued by the Ld. ACMM on 26.10.2016.  Though there was the delay of about 3 days in intimation to the OP.  It is pertinent to mention that the OP has not repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that it is not genuine or theft has not taken place or policy is not issued to the complainant.  It has been repudiated only on the ground of delay.  When the complainant had intimated the Police immediately after the theft of the vehicle on 08.10.2015 and has lodged an e-FIR on 12.09.2015 then the OP cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant merely on the ground of delayed intimation to OP about the occurrence of theft as per settled law.  Considering judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, above stated, this Commission is of the view that complainant has been able to prove the deficiency on the part of OP and is entitled for the claim amount of Rs.1,39,939/- from OP along with compensation for his sufferings, mental agony, harassment, physical and financial loss.   Accordingly, OP is directed to release the IDV of Rs.139939/- to the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 16.02.2017  till its actual realization by the complainant and a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards his sufferings for mental agony, harassment and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.  OP is directed to pay the stated amount to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay an interest @ 9% p.a. on the entire amount i.e. Rs.1,59,939/- (Rs.1,39,939/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.5000/-) till its actual realization by the complainant.     

The case could not be decided within stipulated time due to heavy pendency of the cases before the Commission. 

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.  

File be consigned to Record Room.   

Announced on 22.11.2023.