DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 670/2016
D.No.________________ Dated: ___________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mrs. RITU DUA W/o SH. RAJESH DUA,
R/o 48/52, PUNJABI BAGH (WEST),
NEW DELHI-110026. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
TATA AIG Co. LTD.,
OFFICE AT: 301-308, 3rd FLOOR,
AGGARWAL PRESTIGE MALL, PLOT No. 2,
ROAD No. 44, NEAR M2K CINEMA,
RANI BAGH, PITAMPURA,
NEW DELHI-110034. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 05.07.2016 Date of decision: 17.05.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that on 06.01.2016, the complainant found that her car model Hyundai EON Magnum 2013, colour-Steel Grey vehicle Registration no. DL-10-CD-9640 got stolen from outside her
CC No. 670/2016 Page 1 of 8
premises and the complainant registered a FIR with the Police and also informed to OP i.e. insurance company. Thereafter, OP sent an investigator agent from M/s Globe Claims Investigation Agency to the premises of the complainant for the investigation of the larceny of the said vehicle and the complainant stated the true facts of the incident to the investigating agent orally and on the advice of the agent, the complainant wrote the information about the incident which the agent dictated. The complainant further alleged that while mentioning all the facts, the complainant told the agent that one of the two original keys was lying in the dashboard of the said car but the car was locked at the time of the incidence and while dictating the whole incident, the agent manipulated the words and deceptively made the complainant to write in the application that the key (in question) was ‘on the dashboard’ instead of ‘in the dashboard’ inspite of knowing the true fact as he was told orally and this manipulation was done to make the whole episode look like a case of ‘gross negligence’ which the insurance company liberated from the payment of the legitimate claim to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the complainant always intended to state that the key (in question) was ‘in the dashboard’ and it appalled the complainant when the complainant realised through the letter by OP on 17.03.2016, that her story has been twisted and
CC No. 670/2016 Page 2 of 8
is being used as a weapon, to avoid the payment of legitimate claim and the said letter intimated the complainant by leaving the key on the dashboard has committed ‘gross negligence’ hence the claim was repudiated and the complainant has also paid all the insurance premiums on time and the complainant has been paying her loan installments on time and was still paying the installment. The complainant further alleged that under the facts and circumstances the complainant had already informed the relevant facts and this act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to pay the insurance claim alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a. as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. OP has been contesting the case and filed written statement and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP further submitted that on intimation of theft/claim under the policy on 06.01.2016, OP thoroughly investigated the matter and it transpired from the statement of the complainant, statement of Devyani Dua who is daughter of the complainant and investigation carried out by OP on 05.01.2016 at around 7:00 p.m., Ms. Devyani Dua had taken the said car for attending a Party at Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and after returning from the said party at about 11:00 p.m., she parked the said car in front of the premises
CC No. 670/2016 Page 3 of 8
and it further revealed that daughter of the complainant while parked the car left the original ignition key of the said car on the Dash Board of the said car and on the next morning, when the car cleaner came for cleaning the car, the said car was found missing. OP further submitted that it is evident from the cause of theft that the complainant’s daughter with gross negligence left the original ignition key of the said car on the dash board due to which theft of the said car took place and the subject vehicle could not be stolen, if, proper and reasonable precaution/care would had been taken by the complainant’ daughter in keeping the original key of the said car with her and since the complainant failed to take proper safety and care in parking the vehicle, invited miscreants to take advantage and take away the vehicle. OP further submitted that in terms of the policy or otherwise, the complainant was under obligation to keep the said vehicle with utmost care and safety (condition no-4), however, in gross violation of the same, the complainant’s daughter left the original ignition key of the said vehicle on the dash board, due to which the alleged thief/thieves took advantage of the same and the vehicle was stolen and the complainant has not acted like a reasonable and prudent person and has left the vehicle unattended with its key and due to this recklessness, theft of the said vehicle took place which is a violation in terms & conditions 4 and
CC No. 670/2016 Page 4 of 8
condition-8 of the policy and as such the complainant is not entitled to the claim amount an accordingly, the claim was repudiated by OP vide letter dated 02.06.2016.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant and her daughter Ms. Devyani Dua filed their separate affidavits in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of FIR no. 000672 dated 07.01.2016, copy of letter dated 28.05.2016 sent by the complainant to OP, copy of letter dated 02.06.2016 sent by OP to the complainant. copy of insurance policy bearing no. 0153156453 01 for the period from 25.08.2015 to 24.08.2016 (mid-night) for the IDV of Rs.2,50,000/- issued by OP, copy of letter dated 17.03.2016 sent by OP to the complainant, copies of letters dated 02.06.2016 & 15.06.2016 sent by OP to the complainant, copy of reminder dated 18.04.2016 sent by OP to the complainant and copy of complaint sent by the complainant to SHO, Police Station, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi about the theft of the said car.
6. On the other hand on behalf of OP, Sh. Sanjay Bhagat, Vice President/AR of OP filed his affidavit which is on the basis of the written statement of OP. OP also filed written arguments. OP also placed on record copy of Specific Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. Mohd. Azhar Wasi who has signed the written statement, copy of Intimation Cum Preliminary Claim Form-Auto Secure Car
CC No. 670/2016 Page 5 of 8
Insurance, copy of declaration for KYC for document submission, copies of statements of the complainant and her daughter named Ms. Devyani Dua recorded by the surveyor on 10.02.2016, copy of repudiation of claim letter dated 02.06.2016 sent by OP to the complainant and copy of Private Car Package Policy.
7. During the proceeding of the case, Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied on following authority/case law:
i) Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017 in case entitled OM Prakash Vs. Reliance Gene. Ins. & ANR. passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 04.10.2017.
8. Ld. Counsel for OP also relied on following authority/case law:
i) First Appeal No. 36/2017 in case entitled Bachhu Singh Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd. & 2 ORS. passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi on 27.04.2017.
9. This forum has considered the case of the complainant and OP in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record. As per the case established the vehicle i.e. Hyundai EON Magnum bearing Registration No. DL-10-CD-9640 was insured with the OP vide policy no. 0153156453-01 which was valid from 25.08.2015 to 24.08.2016 on IDV of Rs.2,50,000/- and the said car was stolen and there was a total loss of the vehicle as admitted by OP. The complainant as well as her daughter named Ms. Devyani Dua have denied having putting original key of the vehicle on the dashboard. It is clarified by the complainant as well as her daughter in their affidavits of evidence that the other key of the vehicle was
CC No. 670/2016 Page 6 of 8
kept by Ms. Devyani Dua inside the dashboard of the vehicle and their statements were recorded by the investigator by twisting the said fact. It is not disputed by OP that the statement of the complainant and her daughter was recorded by the investigator. It is also not plausible that the owner/driver of the vehicle will keep the original key of the car on the dashboard and we are of opinion that the investigator while recording the statement of the complainant and her daughter had twisted the fact about the place where the key of the vehicle was kept. In this regards, OP has not filed any affidavit of the investigator. Thus, relying on the case law as relied on by the complainant, this Forum is of opinion that OP ought to have passed the claim and due to illegal rejection/repudiation of the claim of the complainant we hold OP guilty of deficiency in service.
10. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- being the IDV value of the said car alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 07.01.2016 till the date of this order.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards litigation cost.
11. The above amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant
CC No. 670/2016 Page 7 of 8
within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 17th day of May, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 670/2016 Page 8 of 8
UPLOADED BY :-SATYENDRA JEET
