Delhi

North

CC/72/2022

SH. RAMESH KUMAR DAHIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.:72.2022

 

Sh. Ramesh Kumar Dahiya

Chamber No.278, Civil Wing,

Tis Hazari Courts,

Delhi-11004.

Mob: 9818522610

Email ID: rameshdahiya1213@gmail.com      …                        Complainant

 

                                                          Vs

 

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.

PP Tower, 2^nd floor,

Netaji Subhash Place,

New Delhi.                                                  …                         Opposite Party

 

ORDER

31.07.2024

 

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The briefly stated the facts, as alleged by the Complainant are that, he being the registered owner of Hyundai Creta Car bearing No. DL 8C-AX6635 got it insured vide policy No. PO1160321323457 from OP for period 26.03.2021 to 25.03.2022.
2. On 22.11.2021 at about 12:15 PM, the Complainant was informed by the parking attendant at Tis Hazari Court that the Mega Music System installed in the insured vehicle had been stolen by breaking the front left side window glass. Immediately an FIR bearing no. ND-SM-000704 dated 22.11.2021 under Section 379 IPC was registered at P.S. Subzi Mandi.
3.  OP was also informed. Surveyor was appointed. The Complainant has alleged that the Surveyor after inspection asked for the bills of the window glass replacement and music system which were duly supplied to him. Despite the fact that the said documents were shared, the claim was not settled by OP. Hence, on 16.12.2021 an email was sent to OP. On 17.12.2021, the Complainant shared the claim number and policy number as requested by OP.
4. The Complainant has further alleged that on 05.01.2022 and in a reminder dated 21.01.2022, the OP asked the Complainant to submit the NEFT documents, details for payment as well as payment receipt for repairs and invoice of the replaced stereo. The Complainant telephonically informed the representative of OP that Rs.2,200/- were paid for replacement of the window glass and the bill of the stereo had already been handed over to the Surveyor and the invoice of the stereo replaced was not necessary for passing the claim as stereo was stolen and it is a case of theft and not of repairs. The OP should pay the claim as per the value of the stolen stereo for which the premium has been paid.
5. The Complainant has also stated that again reminders dated 21.01.2022 and 28.01.2022 were sent by OP requesting the same documents mentioned above which was replied vide email dated 29.01.2022 stating that the required documents have already been submitted and a bill of Rs.45,000/- for the value of the stolen stereo had already been supplied.
6. The Complainant has further submitted that the OP has illegally rejected the claim vide letter dated 14.02.2022 without considering the facts and reply dated 29.01.2022. Hence, the present complaint with the allegations of deficiency in services against OP. The Complainant has prayed for the direction to OP to pay Rs.2,200/- made as payment by the Complainant towards the replacement of the broken window glass vide bill dated 22.11.2021.
7. As the incident of theft took place at Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, the FIR was registered at P.S. Subzi Mandi, hence the cause of action for filing the complaint arose at Tis Hazari Courts, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission, the complainant personally work for gain at Tis Hazari Courts and is having his Chamber no. 278, Civil Wing, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, hence the Hon'ble Court has got jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.
8. The complainant has prayed for the following relief:

a. To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 2,200/- paid by the complainant towards replacement of the broken window glass vide bill dated 22.11.2021. Annexure I

b. To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 3,362/ - paid by the. Complainant towards new digital clock stolen in the theft vide bill dated 05.03.2022.Annexure J.

c. To direct the opposite party to pay the cost of the mega stereo 1765 stolen from the vehicle duly insured with the opposite party amounting to Rs. 45,000.- vide bill dated 27.09.2019. Annexure k

d. To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 11,000. - towards litigation cost in favour of the complainant.

e. To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000.- towards compensation for harassment and injury suffered by the complainant due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party and illegally closing the claim.

9. The Complainant has also annexed the copies of Insurance Policy, FIR, emails dated 16.12.2021, 17.12.2021, 29.01.2022 & 31.01.2022, letters dated 05.01.2022, 21.01.2022 & 14.02.2022 and Bills dated 22.11.2022, 05.03.2022 & 27.03.2019 alongwith the copy of the complaint.
10. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the OP. Thereafter written statement was file on their behalf. They have raised several preliminary objections in their defence such as: there is no deficiency in services; the contract of insurance is for indemnification of loss however, the Complainant has failed to show the breach of utmost good faith, insurable interest, valid consideration and actual damages. Hence, there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the party of the OP.
11. It has been submitted that vide letters dated 05.01.2022, 21.01.2022 and 28.01.2022 complainant was requested to submit documents to process the claim.      Mr. Ashok Chawla, Surveyor had submitted his final report, however, despite several reminders complainant has failed to submit the required documents i.e NEFT documents and invoice of the stereo replaced.  
12. The complainant did not cooperate with the OP, thus no deficiency in services can be alleged against them.  The submission of the invoice of stereo replaced has been denied. It has been denied that the complainant is entitled to reimbursement of Rs.3,362/- towards the cost of the new digital clock; Rs.2,200/- towards replacement of the broken window glass and Rs.45,000/- as cost of mega stereo 1765 stolen from the vehicle as the complainant had not submitted any documentary evidence.  Rest of the contents have been denied.
13. The complainant has got himself examined and has deposed the contents of the complaint on oath.  He has relied upon the copy of the policy and got the same exhibited as Ex.CW1/1, copy of the FIR dated 22.11.2021 as Ex.CW1/2, copy of the email dated 16.12.2021 and 17.12.2021 as Ex.CW1/3 and Ex.CW1/4 respectively.  The letter dated 05.01.2022 and 21.01.2022 as Ex.CW1/5 and Ex/CW1/6 respectively. Email dated 29.01.2022 and acknowledgment dated 30.01.2022 as Ex.CW1/8.
14. He has also got exhibited the Claim Closure letter dated 14.02.2022 as Ex.CW1/9.  The bill for replacement of the broken window glass dated 22.01.2021 and bill for Rs.3,362/- for new Digital Clock as Ex.CW1/10 and Ex.CW1/11.   The bill of Rs.45,000/- dated 27.09.2019 for the stolen stereo as Ex.CW1/12. 
15. Sh. Jitendra Dhabhai, the Authorised Representative of OP has been examined.  He has also reiterated the contents of their written statement.
16.  We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties.  We have also perused the material placed on record.  The complainant is aggrieved by the claim Closure letter dated 14.02.2022 (Ex.CW1/9) wherein the claim number MV01147477 has been closed as no claim with the reason that the complainant has not submitted the documents.
17.  It is pertinent to note that OP has not filed a single document with their written statement or evidence.  Thus, surveyor report is also not on record.  The existence of policy cover and claim are not in dispute.  If we look at Ex.CW1/1 i.e. policy schedule for the period 26.03.2021 to 25.03.2022, the IDV for the electrical accessories is Rs.70,000/-.
18. Vide letter dated 05.01.2022 (Ex.CW1/5), the surveyor has asked the complainant to submit the following documents:-

• NEFT(cancelled cheque with name printed) details of NEFT mode of payment
• Bills/Payment receipt for the repairs carried out.

 

19. Similarly in reminder dated 21.01.2022 the complainant has been asked to provide invoice of the stereo replaced and NEFT documents for payment. We are unable to appreciate as to why the invoice for stereo replaced is being sought by OP. Handing over the Invoice of the stolen stereo has not been disputed .When the complainant has submitted the invoice of the stolen stereo, which was insured by OP, the invoice for the stereo replaced is not required.
20. It is settled principle of law that insurance is the contract of indemnification of actual loss, is present case the actual loss is the theft of mega stereo 1765, breaking of window glass and theft of digital clock in the insured vehicle.
21. Hon’ble Supreme Court has in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Kantika Colour Lab & Ors III (2010) CPJ & 14(SC) held that
    •  
22. As per Ex.CW1/E, the surveyor has asked for NEFT details for mode of payment and bills/payment receipt for the repairs carried out, nowhere the bill for stereo replaced has been asked for by the surveyor.  It is only letter dated 21/01/2022 (Ex.CW1/6), the OP has asked the complainant to provide for invoice of the stereo replaced; the demand of said invoice is irrelevant.  
23. From the above discussion, we hold that the rejection of the claim by OP for non-submission of the necessary documents is baseless and an irrelevant. This act of OP amounts to deficiency in services as well as adoption of unfair trade practice.  The non-settlement of the claim on flimsy ground has caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant
24. Hence, in the fact and circumstance of the present complaint we direct OP to :

1. Pay Rs.2,200/- towards the repair of the broken glass window of the insured vehicle.
2. Pay Rs.45,000/- towards the cost of stereo which was insured by OP in their policy.
3. Rs.3,362/- towards the cost of the digital clock
4. We also direct OP to pay interest @7% p.a. on 50,562/- (a+b+c) from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e 26/03/2022 to till realization.
5. Pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment, inclusive of litigation expenses.

25.       OP is directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  In case of non- compliance OP shall be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. from the date of order till realization on the amount awarded in para 24 above.

Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

             HARPREET KAUR CHARYA                                                ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA

                          Member                                                                                         Member      

                DCDRC-1 (North)                                                                          DCDRC-1 (North)

 

               DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

                             President 

            DCDRC-1 (North)