Delhi

East Delhi

CC/132/2014

MS.GULNAZ - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

29 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 132/14

 

Ms. Gulnaz

D/o Shri Sultan

R/o 221, NDMC Flats

Sector-11, Rohini

New Delhi                                                                   ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

506, Pragati Deep Building

Laxmi Nagar district Centre

Delhi – 110 092

 

Also at:

E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitaura

Jaipur, Rajasthan-362 022                                                …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 03.02.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 29.08.2018

Judgement Passed on: 30.08.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Ms. Gulnaz against Shriram General Insruance Co. Ltd. (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Toyato Innova (Diesel Car) bearing no, DL-5CE-0321 from Shri Ashok Kumar through Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. having its branch office at Naniwala Bagh Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi.  The said car was got transferred in the name of the complainant by registering authority. 

            The complainant got financed the car for a sum of Rs. 5,38,000/- by Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.   He insured the vehicle with M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) for an IDV of Rs. 5,00,000/- by paying the premium amount of Rs. 19,107/- for a period from 07.03.2012 to 06.03.2013.

            It was stated that the car was stolen on 29.08.2012 in the night from Mirzapur Ghaziabad for which the complainant lodged a complaint with police station Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad vide FIR No. 512/12 under section 379 IPC.   After filing the closure report in the concerned court of Ghaziabad for non tracing the vehicle, the complainant filed the insurance claim alongwith all requisite documents in the office of OP at Laxmi Nagar in the month of September, 2012. 

            The complainant received a letter dated 26.04.2013 from OP stating  that the complainant has not submitted certain documents, hence the claim file of the complainant was closed as “No Claim”.  Thereafter, the complainant submitted the required documents in the office of OP.  She visited the office of OP many a times and contacting on phone, but OP did not pass the insurance claim of the complainant.  As OP was failed to discharge his duties towards the complainant, it amounts to negligence on the part of OP. 

            Legal notice was also sent to Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (OP), which was neither replied nor complied. 

            Thus, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund the insurance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith 18% interest; Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards the financial loss, mental pain, agony, humiliation, harassment and loss of reputation in the society and cost of litigation.

3.         In the Written Statement filed on behalf of OP, they have admitted that the vehicle of the complainant was insured with them vide policy no. 101046/31/12/015693 dated 06.03.2012 for the period from 07.03.2012 to 06.03.2013 for IDV of Rs. 5,00,000/-.  It was stated that the complainant informed the OP for the first time on 28.09.2012, after a delay of 30 days of theft in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  He also lodged the FIR on 11.09.2012, after a delay of 13 days.    

            It was further stated that OP sent letter dated 19.12.2012, 02.01.2013 and 17.01.2013 to the complainant to verify and produce the documents, but the complainant failed to do so. Hence, the claim of the complainant was closed vide letter dated 26.04.2013 on the ground of non-cooperation.  Other facts have also been denied.         

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of her complaint. 

5.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined herself.  She has deposed on affidavit.  She has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  

            In defence, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (OP) have examined Shri Vishal Gupta, Asstt. Manager (Legal), who has also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of policy certificate alongwith policy conditions (Ex.OPW-1/A), copy of claim intimation letter dated 28.09.2012 (Ex.OPW-1/B), copy of letters dated 19.12.2012, 02.01.2013 and 17.01.2013 (Ex.OPW-1/C colly.) and copy of letter dated 26.04.2013 alongwith postal receipt (Ex.OPW-1/D).

 

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the written arguments filed on behalf of OP, though they did not appear to argue.  In the written arguments filed on behalf of OP, it has been stated that there was delay of 30 days in informing to the insurance company.  The delay of 13 days has also been stated in lodging FIR which amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

            It has further been stated that the complainant did not file the documents which were called for. 

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant have argued that they have submitted the documents to the insurance company through Suraksha Enterprises, the Surveyor, as per letter of dated 24.02.2014.  When the complainant have submitted the papers to the surveyor M/s. Suraksha Enterprises on 24.02.2014, the plea taken by the insurance company that the complainant have not submitted the documents cannot be accepted.  The insurance company should have asked the surveyor to submit all the documents which he has received from the complainant. 

            The fact that complainant have submitted all the documents to the surveyor  on 24.02.2014 and the insurance company have not disposed of the claim of the complainant on the basis of these documents, their plea that there was delay in informing to the insurance company as well as to the police authorities have no relevance at all.  Inspite of having received the documents, the insurance company have not processed the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. 

            In view of the above, we direct Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., (OP) to dispose of the claim of the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.

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

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

                                                                              

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

President