DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 300/2014
Date of Institution 26/03/2014
Order reserved on 24/08/2016
Date of Order 26/08/2016
In matter of
Mr Sachin Kamra, adult
s/o Sh Rajender Kamra
R/o- C-98, Block C,
Surajmal Vihar, Delhi-110095……………………………………...…………….Complainant
Vs
1-The Branch Manager,
The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
RO- Plot no. 60, Okhla Industrial Area Phase III,
Okhla, New Delhi 110020
2- The Div. Manager,
The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
2nd Floor, Mercantile House,
15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001……………….……………..Respondents
Complainant’s Advocate - Sh Lalit Kumar Sharma
Opponent’s Advocate - Sh SPS Chauhan
Quorum Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari Member
Brief Facts of the case
This complaint case got delayed due to Forum’s renovation and lack of Forum’s staff for about two years.
Mr Sachin Kamra, complainant, a businessman by profession, purchased a new Hyandai Verna CRDI car from Orion Automobiles Pvt Ltd at B-31-32, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon having its registration no. DL7CN-8798, its engine no. 04007 and chassis no. 28559, white colored, on 26/06/2013 for a sum of Rs 10,21,352/-vide invoice no. H201300878. The same car was financed by HDFC Bank, Patpargunj branch, Delhi.
Complainant took insurance policy from OP1 and policy was issued to complainant on 26/06/2013 to 25/06/2014 vide policy no. 1316732311000601 which was valid. The complainant parked his car, after locking car properly, in front of his house in the night of 03 04/01/2014 at about 10PM. He used to park his car daily as usual.
In the morning of 04/01/2014, complainant noticed that his car was not at the place where he parked. After inquiring from neighbors and in colony, informed police. A FIR was lodged on 04/01/2014 vide no. 8/2014 u/s 379 IPC. Complainant in his statement given to police that one brief case was also present in the dickey of the car which had some important business papers along with one duplicate key of this car, though this key was not useable. He also informed RTO, National Crime Record Bureau about the theft of his car on the same morning of 04/01/2014.
Complainant also informed OP on telephonically and also through written note. The OP lodged claim vide no. 2144002236. Complainant received rejection letter from OP1 on 06/03/2014 stating as claim was repudiated as key was left inside the car, which violate policy terms and condition clause 4 of Motor Insurance Policy.
Complainant getting aggrieved by rejection of claim from OP1, filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs 11,69,000/-as total amount paid by the complainant with 24% including loan interest. He also claimed compensation of a sum of Rs 2Lac for mental harassment and Rs 21,000/- as litigation charges.
After scrutiny of complaint and annexure filed by complainant, notices were served. OP filed their written statement along with evidences on affidavit. OP admitted that the said car was insured by them and had valid insurance.
They also admitted that complainant had informed OP and FIR was also lodged u/s 379IPC. But claim rejection was justified as per Section 4 of Motor Insurance Policy which reads as -
“Quote-Condition-4- The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are affected any extension of the damage or any further damages to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured own risk,”. Unquote.
In addition to this clause, OP also took exception of section 2 of Motor Insurance Policy ie-“The company shall not be liable under this policy in interest of “any claim arising out of any contractual liability. OP also submitted a copy of Policy and rejection letter vide exhibit no. as Ex. DW1& 2/4 and Ex.DW1&2/3.
By taking the shelter of these two sections, OP also took the reference of statement of complainant given in FIR that the duplicate key was present in a brief case lying in car.
Complainant filed rejoinder and evidence on affidavit. OPs also submitted their evidences on affidavit along with surveyor’s report vide Exh.DW1&2/2 who also stated that insured had left used original key in the vehicle. Insurer had to take its own decision accordingly.
Arguments heard and order was reserved.
By perusal of facts and evidences submitted by the parties. OP also had submitted citations whose facts were different to this present case.
Forum took the reference of following citations as under-
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nitin Khandelwal-
IV(2008)CPJ I (SC), decided on 08/05/2008.
It was held that OP cannot repudiate the claim on the basis when theft of vehicle occurred and condition 4 of the Motor Insurance policy not germane in case of theft of vehicle.
- IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ram Gopal Soni & others. -
III(2012)CPJ235(NC), decided on 31/05/2012.
It was held that in case of theft, where case was registered u/s 379 IPC, and untrace report by police means that vehicle was actually stolen. Repudiation was not justified by OP.
By taking merits of the case, evidences and references of related citations, we come to the conclusion that the complainant is a businessman and had purchased a good quality car for his own use. He had taken care properly which he was taking as usual. Theft occurred and intimation to the concerned authorities was given and the said vehicle was insured. The said vehicle/car was about 6 months old. Taking the reference of Exh. DW1&2/4 and Reliance Private Car Package
Policy under section 1 reads as “Loss of or damage to the vehicle insured r/w sub clause 1(ii)” which clearly states that company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the vehicle insured under and /or its accessories whilst thereon in the table given based on depreciation at the rates mentioned in the table shall be applicable.
By referring this table, it is clear that the said car/vehicle of the complainant which was duly insured, was over 6 months old and under the category,“ Exceeding 6 month but not exceeding 1 year, the value will be deducted 5% of the sum assured as depreciation value.
As the said car was insured for a sum of Rs 10,21,252/-and falls in deduction category of 5%, so OP are liable to pay the claim amount deducting 5% of its assured IDV. The OPs conduct has been found deficient in providing their services to the insured as per the terms and conditions of the said policy.
We allow this complaint and direct OPs to pay the claim based on terms and conditions after deducting 5% depreciation value of insured car with 9% interest from the date of filling of this complaint, within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order.
We also award a compensation of a sum of Rs 20,000/- as mental harassment caused by deficient services of OPs with litigation fee a sum of Rs 5000/-. The OPs have to comply the order in time essence and if OPs fails, then, entire awarded amount will carry the same interest till realization.
The order copy be sent to the parties as per act and file be consigned to the record room.
Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member (Dr) P N Tiwari - Member
Mr Sukhdev Singh - President
