CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.145/2011
SH. ROHIT CHAUHAN,
W/O SH. B.S. CHAUHAN,
R/O H.NO.21, SHAHPUR,
GOVERDHANPUR, NOIDA,
DISTT. GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, U.P.
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD.,
PLOT NO.60, OKHLA INDL. AREA,
PHASE-III, NEW DELHI-110020
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER
- GENERAL MANAGER,
M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD.,
PLOT NO.60, OKHLA INDL. AREA,
PHASE-III, NEW DELHI-110020
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 16.11.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he is owner of vehicle bearing NO.UP-16-T-2896, Indica Car, Model 2008 and the said vehicle was insured by the OP from 17.12.2009 to 16.12.2010. The said vehicle was driven by Sh. Manoj Kumar, brother-in-law of the complainant. The said vehicle was stolen on 07.04.2010 from outside the house of Mr. Manoj Chauhan and despite making best efforts the said vehicle could not be traced and FIR bearing No.164/2010 dated 06.04.2010 was registered dated at P.S. Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi and ultimately untraceable report was filed. The complainant lodged a claim with OP however the claim was repudiated on the flimsy ground that the complaint has sold the car in question to Sh. Manoj Kumar.
It is not in dispute that only ground on which claim has been repudiated is that the complainant has sold the car in question to Mr Manoj Kumar and said Manoj Kumar has given an affidavit in this regard. It is stated in the reply that FIR was lodged by Sh. Manoj Kumar and it is clear from FIR that complainant was not owner of car at the time of alleged theft of the vehicle.
It is stated that it is clear form the documents that the vehicle has been sold by the complainant to Sh. Manoj Kumar without intimation to OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
Complainant is registered owner of the car in question. It is evident from the report of investigator that complainant was running the business of tour and travels. The contention of OP that it is evident from the FIR that complainant was not owner of the car in question at the time of theft rather Mr. Manoj Kumar was owner of the car is without basis. The first document regarding the theft of the car is the FIR No.164 dated 09.4.2010. That FIR has been lodged by Sh. Manoj Chauhan wherein he has specifically mentioned that he is driver by profession and on 06.4.10 at about 10.00 AM he parked the vehicle of his brother-in-law which he was driving in front of his house and in the morning at 7.00 AM the same was not there. In the FIR he has stated that the car belonged to his brother-in-law. He is merely driver of the aforesaid car.
We do not know on what basis an inference has been drawn from the FIR that the car was purchased by Sh. Manoj Kumar. Since Sh. Manoj Kumar was driving car of complainant he has rightfully lodged FIR regarding the theft of car. He has specifically stated in the FIR that the car belonged to complainant and not to him. The entire case of OP is based on the report of investigator wherein Investigator has stated that Sh. Manoj Kumar was owner of the car and he has purchased the car from the complainant and Sh. Manoj Kumar has submitted an affidavit to the investigator in this regard.
That affidavit has not been produced by the complainant before this Forum. The claim was repudiated by OP on 29.10.2010. Complainant on 11.1.2011 wrote a letter to OP asking him to supply him documents by which he has sold the car to Sh Manoj Kumar. That letter was duly received by Insurance Company on 11.1.2011. Neither reply to that letter was given by OP to complainant nor the documents were supplied to complainant. The alleged affidavit has not been filed on the record.
It is further significant to note that it is the complainant who has moved an application before the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for sending the case as untraced. On the application of complainant, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order of untraced on 25.9.10. The complainant has specifically stated that the signature of his brother-in-law were taken on certain blank papers under the garb of settlement of claim. The investigator has not confronted the complainant about the selling of car to Sh. Manoj Kumar or about the affidavit. Assuming for the sake of arguments that an affidavit was given by Sh. Manoj Kumar, does it amount to sale of car. There is no supporting documents placed on record in the form of F-29 and F-30 that the vehicle was sold by complainant to Sh. Manoj Kumar. If affidavit can only be criteria in order to deny the claim of a genuine person, such affidavit can be obtained from driver of any car.
The FIR clinches entire issue wherein Sh. Manoj Kumar has specifically stated that he is a driver of the complainant and complainant is his brother-in-law. If he has actually purchased the vehicle, he would have definitely mentioned that he is owner of the car and he has purchased the car from his brother-in-law rather he has stated that car belonged to his brother-in-law.
The most important thing is that the affidavit on which OP is relying has been withheld from this Forum. Even the same was not supplied by the complainant as demanded by him vide letter dated 11.01.2011. OP has failed to prove that complainant has sold the car to Sh. Manoj Kumar. Repudiation is unjustified. The car in question was insured for a sum of Rs.2,85,000/-.
Complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- alongwith interest @ 10% from May 2010. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- as well as litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
