Delhi

East Delhi

CC/455/2021

ROBIN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYAL SUNDRAM G.I.C. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.455/2021

 

 

ROBIN SINGH

S/O SH. MUKESH

R/O GUHILLA MOHALLA, CHILLA SARODA,

MAYUR VIHAR PHASE -1, CHILLA SARODA,

KHADAR EAST DELHI – 110091

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ….Complainant

Versus

 

 

THE ROYAL SUNDARAM

GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

CORPORATE OFFICE:

VISHRANTI MELARAM TOWERS. NO.2/319,

RAJI GANDHI SALAI (OMR) KARAPAKAM,

CHENNAI – 600097

 

REGISTERED OFFICE:

21, PATULLOS ROAD,

CHENNAI – 600 002

ROYAL SUNDARAM IRDAI REGD. NO. 102

 

SERVICE BRANCH ADDRESS:

108/109 AND 111, 1ST FLOOR, AMBADEEP,

14, K.G. MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE,

NEW DELHI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

……OP1

 

PROBUS INSURANCE

B WING 116, DATTANI PLAZA, SAFED POOL.

SAKINAKA, ANDHERI EAST,

MUMBAI- 40072

 

 

 

 

……OP2

 

 

 

Date of Institution

:

16.11.2021

Judgment Reserved on

:

21.09.2023

Judgment Passed on

:

09.10.2023

 

 

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra

(President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal

(Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar

(Member)

 

Order By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

JUDGMENT

The present complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of OP and against the repudiation of his claim w.r.t stolen vehicle. 

  1. Precisely the case of the complainant is this that his car, was insured by OP1 for a  period from 23.03.2021 to 22.03.2022, through OP2, on payment of a gross premium of Rs.17,511.2/-  at the IDV of Rs. 6,55,866/- . Complainant submits that on the intervening night of 27/28.03.2021, the above said vehicle was stolen parked in front of his shop, for which an E-FIR dated 28.03.2021 was registered and OP1 was also informed about said theft. Complainant submitted that the original documents pertaining to the car were lying in the dicky of the car. Complainant has filed all the required documents to the OP1 including the untraced report dated 30.09.2021 issued by Hon'ble ACMM, East Delhi.  Complainant submits that OP did not clear his claim rather has got his signature on some blank papers by stating that they have to complete some formalities for the purpose of sanctioning of his claim, which were done by him in good faith but later were misused by the OP1 to avoid his claim and manipulated a false story regarding commercial use of the said vehicle. The complainant submits that the vehicle was used by him privately and the OP has closed his claim on 10.03.2022 as ‘No – Claim’ despite submission of all the documents and further submits that non realising of his claim amount by OP1 amount to deficiency in service and he claims the release of his claim along with interest and also seeks compensation for his suffering of mental agony and harassment, with litigation cost.
  2. Despite notice OP1 and OP2 chose not to appear and as such have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.08.2022. The application of OP1 for setting aside the said ex-parte order was also dismissed vide order dated on 06.02.2023.
  3. Complainant has filed his ex-parte evidence along with documents in support of his case, viz., RC of the vehicle, confirmation of payment and issuance of policy, “claim closing” letter dated 10.03.2022, letters of OP1 dated 07.12.2021, 24.10.2021, certificate of insurance, copy of e- FIR, copy of the untraced report dated 13.09.2021.
  4. Since OPs   have been proceeded ex-parte, the Commission does not have any opportunity to hear their version in defence and all the allegations put forwarded by the complainant remained uncontroverted and deemed to be admitted by OP1 and OP2.
  5. The factum of theft and insurance policy is not in dispute. The letter dated 10.03.2022 of OP1 shows that infect OP1 did not close the claim but stated to be closed if it has not been clarified within 7 days about the reason for private vehicle used for hire and reward and to fulfil other requirements. There is no documents on record which establishes that the said vehicle is being used for commercial purpose. Moreover, the rest of the requirements, as appeared from letter dated 10.03.2022, are not of such nature that can create hindrance in processing the claim of the complainant. One of the clarification sought by the OP1 is the reason for delayed intimation to OP1.  On which date OP1 was informed is not specifically mentioned, neither by OP1, nor disclosed by the complainant, and is very well covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court  in Civil Appeal No.653 of 2020 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 24370 of 2015) Gurshinder Singh vs Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr wherein it is held that delay in providing information to the Insurance Company is not fatal to the seeking of insurance claim. Followed in CA – 4758/2023 Ashok Kumar vs New India Insurance, wherein vide ordre dated 31.07.2023 Hon'ble Supreme Court  held that mere delay in intimation to the insurance co cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.
  6. It is well settled that in a long line of judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts that the violation of the condition should be in the nature of a fundamental breach so as to deny the claimant any amount, however, in the present case there is no breach of fundamental condition of the policy and therefore, this Commission is of the view that OP1 is deficient in its services in not allowing the claim of the complainant. Therefore, OP1 is directed to pay the claim of the complainant i.e. the IDV of the vehicle Rs.  6,55,000/- along with compensation of Rs.  20,000/- for causing him mental harassment and agony along with litigation charges of Rs.10,000/- within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the OP1 shall be liable to pay an interest @6% p.a. on the whole amount i.e. 6,55,000/- + 20,000/- + Rs.10,000/- from the date of filing of the complainant i.e. 11.11.2021 till actual realisation of the amount by the complainant.      
  7. The copy of the order be given to the parties as per CPA rules and thereafter filed be consigned to record room.
  8. Order contains 05 pages, each beers our signatures.
  9. Pronounced on  09.10.2023.

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.