Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/142/2022

ARUN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

RBT/Complaint Case No. 142/22

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Arun Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Aklesh Yadav, R/o H.No. 224/220, Kh. No. 180, Choudhrane Mandir wali Gali, Village, Rithala, New Delhi 110085		Complainant
		Versus
		The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Motor OD Claim Hub, Service Centre DRO-2, 4-E/14, Azad Bhawan, Ground Floor, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi 110055   Also at: Issuing office: 2E/16, Swami Ram, Tirath Nagar, CBO 18, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi 110055		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: DATE OF ORDER:		17.02.2018 12.02.2024 24.04.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant 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 the Complainant had purchased an E-rickshaw bearing registration no. DL 11ER 3080. The said E-rickshaw was duly insured with Opposite Party. The period of the said policy was from 18.05.2017 to 17.05.2018. Complainant stated that on 26.05.2017 at about 8:10 hrs. two passengers took the service of the                 E-rickshaw of the Complainant from Rithala Metro to Madhuban Chowk. Complainant stated that on the way, both the passengers served a cold drink to him and after drinking it he became unconscious for lump sum 10 hours and when he became conscious then he found that his E-rickshaw was not there and even that passengers. Complainant stated that he tried his level best to search the said E-rickshaw but he could not find the same. Thereafter, he immediately got registered an FIR bearing no. 016124 at E-police station Prashant Vihar, Outer District on 27.05.2017 in respect of the theft. Complainant stated that he also informed the Opposite Party about the said incident and requested to disburse the claim amount as the said E-rickshaw was duly insured at the time of theft. Complainant stated that the Opposite Party duly acknowledged the claim of the Complainant and assured the Complainant that his claim had been proceeded further and the claim amount shall be disbursed soon. Complainant stated that Opposite Party further completed all the formalities and took all the necessary documents from the Complainant as a part of the investigation. Complainant stated that Opposite Party vide letter dated ../11/2017 repudiated the claim of the Complainant by taking vague and ambiguous plea and infact in stereotype manner that the claim of the Complainant was not admissible and the same stands repudiated. On 06.12.2017, Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party but it did not give any reply. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for an amount of Rs. 1,01,745/- i.e. the insured amount of the vehicle in question. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation charges.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the E-rickshaw of the Complainant was insured by it for the period from 18.05.2017 to 17.05.2018. There were certain terms and conditions of the said insurance policy. One of them was that the person driving the               E-rickshaw must hold an effective driving licence at the time of accident. It is stated that the claim of the Complainant was rejected as at the time of the incident he was not having a valid licence and in fact he was holding a learning licence. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit and the same may be dismissed.

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. 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 assertions made in the complaint. It is stated that the Complainant was not supplied the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit, wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Ms. Monika, Senior Divisional Manager of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that his E-rickshaw was stolen and at the time of theft his E-rickshaw was insured by the Opposite Party. It is his case that his claim has been wrongly rejected by the Opposite Party. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that at the time of incident the Complainant was not having a valid license and he was having only a Learner License. It is the case of the Opposite Party that this was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The case of the Complainant is that he was not supplied the terms and condition of the policy.
7. From the perusal of the file, it is revealed that the following facts are admitted:

(I) That the E-rickshaw of the Complainant was stolen.

(II) That the E-rickshaw was insured by the Opposite Party at the time of theft.

8. The claim was rejected by the Opposite Party on the ground that at the time of incident the Complainant was not having a valid driving license which was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The case of the Complainant is that he was not supplied the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Now the question is that whether the Opposite Party had supplied the terms and conditions of the policy to the Complainant. No evidence has been led by the Opposite Party to show that the Complainant was supplied the terms and conditions of the said insurance policy. Therefore, the Opposite Party cannot reject the claim of the Complainant on this ground as it had never supplied the terms and conditions of the policy to the Complainant.
9. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party shall pay an amount of Rs. 1,01,745/- i.e. the value of the E-rickshaw to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party shall also pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
10. Order announced on 24.04.2024.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President