Delhi

East Delhi

CC/349/2013

BADAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI RAM GEN INS. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jan 2018

ORDER

             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                       

                                                                                                        Consumer complaint no.   349 / 2013                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Date of Institution             29/04/2013

                                                                                                        Order reserved on             23/01/2018

                                                                                                        Date of Order                     24/01/2018               

In matter of

Mr Badan Singh, adult

S/o  Sh. Bhoja Singh      

R/o- UG-1, B-160, Shalimar Garden,  

Sahibabad, Ghaziabad,UP…………………………..…………….Complainant                                                                    

                                                                           

                                                                              Vs

1-M/s Shri Ram General Insurance Co. ltd.

506,507, 5^th Floor,  

Pragati Deep Building, District Centre,

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi ……………………….…………………………..Opponent

 

 

Complainant’s Advo.-  R K Gupta & Associates – Advocates

Opponent’s Advo. -     Naveen Kumar Chauhan 

 

Quorum …………………………………………..Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                                                                   Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                                                                   Smt Harpreet Kaur    Member                                                                                                                      

                    

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief  Facts of the case                                                                                                   

Complainant/Badan Singh, a Delhi police personal, c/o Barrack no.1, PS New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi, had two wheeler motor cycle, Hero Passion, registration no. DL5SY9529, black coloured model 2009, chasis no. 19783 and engine no. 19611, was insured from OP/Shri Ram General Insurance Co. from 23/02/2011 to 22/02/2012 (Ex Anne.1 & 2) for a sum of Rs 35,000/-vide cover note no. 967829 dated 22/02/2011 after paying Rs 1065/- as premium.

It had been stated that the said vehicle was stolen from inside parking of Post Office Krishna Nagar, Delhi on 29/03/2011 at about 12.50pm which was duly locked by handle lock and wheel lock. An FIR was lodged at Anand Vihar Police station on the same date u/s 379 IPC (Ex Anne. 3). Later police submitted ‘Un-traced Report’ (Ex Ann. 4).

Complainant being a layman, could not intimate OP in time and after some time intimated OP and completed claim formalities, but OP repudiated his claim in March 2013 in arbitrary and malafied manner so caused mental agony  and harassment. Despite of repeated inquiring from OP no satisfactory reply was given. Thereafter complainant sent a legal notice (Ex Anne. 5) on dated 15/02/2013. Hence, filed this complaint and claimed insured amount with compensation of Rs one lac and litigation charges Rs 20,000/-.  

OP filed written statement and denied facts and allegations put against them. OP stated that there was no deficiency on their part as the complainant had taken cover note 967829 dated 22/02/2011 through cheque no. 066619 drawn on IDBI bank Ltd. dated 22/02/2011 for an amount Rs 1065, but the same cheque was dishonored (Ex OPW1/1 & 2), hence there was no contract of privity between OP and complainant.

It was also stated that issuing of a cover note was a standard procedure against every insurance procedure transection, but under 64VB of Insurance Act, if cheque was bounced then contract stand cancelled. Hence, the present complainant was not a genuine claimant and this fact was concealed before the Hon. Forum while filing this complaint.

Complainant filed his rejoinder and denied all the replies given by OP and stated that all the facts of his complaints were correct and true.  He also submitted his evidence on affidavit and reaffirmed that all the evidences were correct and had been on record.  

OP filed their evidence through affidavit of Mr Vishal Gupta, Manager Legal at OP office, who stated on oath that the present complainant was not a genuine claimant and as his cheque was dishonored, so there was no contract of Insurance between OP and complainant. More so, it was stated that complainant was not a genuine claimant as the mode of theft was shown where his two wheeler was properly kept and was driven by someone else and it could not be accepted that being in Delhi Police, he was a layman and could not intimate to the OP as per the terms of the policy. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of this frivolous complaint.

Arguments were heard from both the parties and order was reserved.

After perusal of all the facts and evidences filed by the parties, it was evident that OP had issued only a cover note against the cheque given by complainant which was dishonored, so there was no contract of insurance. Merely issuing a cover note in absence of valid consideration does not establish the right of insurable interest. There was no policy of insurance against the said two wheeler and manner of theft showed also not genuine as parking a vehicle inside the Post office area under proper care by applying dual locks was not possible for theft. As the complainant was an employee of Delhi Police and was staying at Barrack no. 1 at PS New Ashok Nagar, could not be said to be a layman. Also no intimation was given in time to OP for claiming his ‘loss’. There was neither valid ID of the complainant nor any other genuine identity to prove the claim as genuine. Hence, the repudiation by OP was justified under the terms and conditions as complainant could not prove deficiency of OP by any concrete evidence.  

Hence, we come to the conclusion that there was no merit in this complaint and deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any cost to order.  

 

The copy of the order be sent to the parties under the Regulation 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005 (in short the CPR) and the file be consigned to Record Room under regulation20(1) of the CPR.

 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                           Mrs Harpreet Kaur, Member 

                                                         Sukhdev Singh – President