DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No. 530/2010

Ranbir Singh 

C/o Shri Taj India Tours

R/o 451, Village & PO Bharthal

New Delhi-110045                                               ….Complainant

Versus

Shriram General Insurance

Through Chief Manager

Office at: K-18, Lajpat Nagar -II

New Delhi – 110024.

Also at:  E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura,

               Jaipur, Rajasthan                                   ……Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution          : 06.08.2010                                                 Date of Order        :  20.09.2016

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

                                      O R D E R

The case of the complainant which is not disputed by the OP, in nutshell,  is that the complainant got his vehicle bearing registration No. DL 01 YA 7674 make Chevrolet Tavera of 2007 insured from the OP for the tenure commencing from 22.01.2010 to 21.01.2011 vide policy No. 101006/31/10/002801 with insured Code 986304/Mr. Ranbir Singh.

According to the complainant, the said vehicle was stolen from the Parking Lot of IGI Airport on 29/30.01.2010 in respect of which FIR No. 57/2010 dated 1.2.2010 was got registered at PS IGI Airport and Police ultimately filed untraced report dated 31.3.2010 in respect of the said vehicle.  The OP on presentation of the claim by the complainant vide claim No. 10000/31/10/C/014351 denied the claim against the loss suffered by the complainant on the ground that the liability was of parking contractor of IGI Airport from where the vehicle had been stolen.  The OP was served with a legal notice dated 3.7.2010 but in vain.  Therefore, pleading negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for directing the OP to pay Rs. 4 Lacs against the insured amount of the vehicle in question and Rs. 1 Lakh for mental agony, deprivation, harassment and litigation expenses etc.

OP in written statement has inter-alia stated that since the vehicle in question was stolen from the authorized parking of the IGI Airport, the services of which were being availed by the complainant, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP since the liability to make good the loss was upon the parking authority.

In the rejoinder, the complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.

Thereafter, OP has been proceeded exparte.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence.

We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have also carefully perused the file.

In view of the admitted facts, the only question to be determined by this forum is, whether the OP was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that liability to make good the loss to the complainant was of the owner/Proprietor of the authorized Parking  of IGI Airport.  The OP has failed to file the copy of the terms and conditions governing the policy in question.  In the absence of any terms and conditions specifying that in such a case the liability to make good the loss of the insured was/is of the owner/Proprietor   of the authorized parking of IGI Airport, the repudiation of the claim in question of the complainant by the OP, in our considered opinion, was not at all justified and it amounts to gross deficiency in service.

As per Certificate-cum-Policy  Schedule (copy Ex. CW1/2), the total value of the vehicle in question was Rs. 4 lacs.

In view of the above discussion, we hold the OP guilty of committing deficiency in service, allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs. 4 lacs towards value of the stolen car in question and Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for loss and sufferings including litigation charges to the complainant  within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay Rs. 4 Lacs along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization.

     Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on   20.09.2016

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                                                                                                              (N.K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT   

Case No. 530/10

20.9.2016

Present –   None.

          Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay Rs. 4 lacs towards value of the stolen car in question and Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for loss and sufferings including litigation charges to the complainant  within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay Rs. 4 Lacs along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization. Let the file be consigned to record room.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                                                                                                              (N.K. GOEL)  MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT