Delhi

East Delhi

CC/760/2013

SHRI SAJID - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

08 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 760/13

 

Shri Sajid

S/o Shri Khuda Baksh

R/o 11, Village Shahur Pur

Delhi                                                                                      ….Complainant

Vs.

1. The Active Branch Manager

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

506, Pragati Deep Building

Laxmi Nagar, Distt. Building

Laxmi Nagar, Distt. Centre

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. The Active Branch Manager

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

E-8, EPIP, RIICO

Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 022

Through its Manager                                                            ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 31.08.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 08.01.2018

Judgment Passed on: 11.01.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            The present complaint pertains to allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the complainant Shri Sajid against the Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Laxmi Nagar (OP-1) and the Active Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur, Rajasthan(OP-2).

2.         Facts in brief are that the complainant had purchased an Insurance Policy bearing no. 101046/31/12/011210 on 16.12.2011, which was valid from 16.12.2011 to 15.12.2012 for his vehicle Maruti Suzuki Wagon-R LXI bearing registration no. DL-08-CH6491 with IDV of Rs. 1,17,000/-.  On 10.07.2012, about 11 am., the vehicle was stolen for which information was given to PCR at 100 number and FIR no. 250/2012 under Section 379 IPC was also registered on 12.07.2012 in P.S. Seemapuri. 

            It has been stated that the documents pertaining to the vehicle were lying in the vehicle itself.  OP was informed on 26.07.2012, after 15 days from the date of incident, as the complainant did not have policy as well as registration details.  Thereafter, Untraced Report was filed by the police and the complainant filed his claim bearing no. 10000/31/13/C/025521 with OP, which was repudiated vide letter dated 24.06.2013 due to breach of condition no. 1 of policy terms and conditions. 

            Complainant got issued Legal Notice dated 23.07.2013 demanding payment of IDV, which was neither replied nor complied with.  Hence, the present complaint with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service with prayer for directions to OP to pay Rs. 1,17,000/- alongwith interest @ 18%p.a.; compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental and physical pain and agony and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.

            The complainant  has annexed copy of Election Card, R.C. of vehicle, policy cover note for 2011-2012, copy of FIR dated 12.07.2012, copy of Untraced Report dated 21.11.2012, Repudiation Letter issued by OP, letter dated 02.07.2013 written by the complainant explaining delay in intimation to OP and Legal Notice dated 23.07.2013 with the complaint. 

3.         OP filed their reply upon service of notice, wherein they took several pleas in their defence such as; there was delay of almost 58 hours in registration of FIR, which remained unexplained and the accused had opportunity to take away the vehicle beyond the reach of police.  Further OP was informed on 26.07.2012 i.e. after delay of 15 days which deprived the OP to carry on proper inquiry and investigation thereby violating policy terms and conditions; complainant was negligent in securing safety and security of the insured vehicle. 

            It was submitted that the claim of the complainant was considered on merits and was repudiated on 24.06.2013.  It was further submitted that the complainant did not cooperate in investigation and failed to provide any justification as to the cause of delay and other documents vide letters dated 13.12.2012, 27.12.2012, 17.01.2013, 01.02.2013 and 13.03.2017.  Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.

            OP has annexed with their reply, the copy of Policy Certificate cum schedule alongwith policy terms and conditions, claim intimation slip, letter written by OP to complainant dated 13.12.2012 alongwith postal receipts, letter dated 17.01.2013, 01.02.2013 and 13.03.2013 demanding documents for processing of claim alongwith postal receipt; investigation report dated 21.02.2013 and repudiation letter.

4.         In his rejoinder to the WS filed by OP, the complainant has denied the contents of the WS and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.  It was stated that the PCR was informed regarding the theft on 10.07.2012 i.e. the same day of incident and has annexed Form-I pertaining to the PCR record. 

5.         Evidence was filed by way of affidavit, where the complainant got examined himself and has deposed the averments made in the complaint.

            OP examined Shri Vishal Gupta, Assistant Manager (Legal), who has reproduced their submissions in their WS and has got exhibited copy of policy terms and conditions as Ex.OPW1/A, copy of claim intimation slip no. 110605 as Ex.OPW1/B; copies of letters dated 13.12.2012, 27.12.2012, 17.01.2013, 01.02.2013 and 13.03.2013 alongwith postal receipts as Ex.OPW1/C (colly); final survey report dated 21.02.2013 as Ex.OPW1/D and repudiation letter alongwith postal receipt as Ex.OPW1/E.

6.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant had got his vehicle insured with IDV of Rs. 1,17,000/- with OP is an admitted fact and the claim of the complainant was repudiated under breach of Clause 1 of the policy terms and conditions. 

            The counsel for the complainant has argued that the delay in intimation was explained to OP, however, from the record, it is obvious that the complainant wrote a letter dated 02.07.2013 explaining the cause of delay which is after the repudiation dated 24.06.2013, prior to repudiation, OP has written several letters to the complainant seeking compliance with the documents as well as explanation of delay in intimation, which has not been rebutted by the complainant.  Thus, OP has given sufficient opportunity to the complainant to explain which the complainant chose not to reply.  Hence, no deficiency in service can be attributed on part of OP.

            However, the factum of theft has been affirmed by the surveyor as well, and the complainant had promptly informed the police authorities on the same day of incident, which is evident from Ex.OPW1/D i.e. the Surveyor’s Report wherein the ‘Theft Status as Police Websites” shows reporting date/time on ZIPNE as 10.07.2012, thus the genuine claim should not be rejected on the technical ground of delay and as the complainant ignored the letters seeking explanation for delayed intimation to OP, we are of the opinion that insurance claim of the complainant for theft may be allowed to the tune of Rs. 87,750/- (being 75% of the IDV of Rs. 1,17,000/-).  The complainant is not entitled to any compensation due to the reasons discussed above.    

            Copy of the order be supplied to both the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                          (SUKHDEV SINGH)

Member                                                                     President