CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/148/21

          Date of Institution:-    25.03.2021

          Order Reserved on:- 24.07.2024

                   Date of Decision:-      08.11.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Ashok

S/o Sh. TularamSaini

R/o Vill. – BadshapurTeekli Road,

UchiKoti, Nr. TalabMandir,

Badshahpur, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122101

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Registered Office at:

301-308, 3^rd Floor, AggarwalPrestive Mall,

Plot No.2, Road No.44, Nr. M2K Cinema Rani Bagh,

Pitampura, New Delhi - 110034

   …..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thathe has purchased Mahindra & Mahindra Brand vehicle bearing registration no.HR26CW1234 for a sum of Rs.8,31,600/- after taking financial assistance of Rs.6,81,600/- with interest from Mahindra & Mahindra financial services ltd., Jharsa Main Sohna Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon. The amount was repayable in 24 instalments of Rs.28400/- each. He has submitted documents to the insurance company and fulfilled all formalities to Sh. Pawan– Investigator. The vehicle was insured with OP vide policy no.0158237048 valid from 21.04.2020 – 20.04.2021. On 01.06.2020, he was coming from Rohtak. His friend Satish Kumar, suffering from Spinal injuries and unable to walk, sought his assistance to take him to Peer for medication at Bahadurgarh. He took his friend to Peer but unfortunately, while coming back one of the tyre got busted. The stepney was not repaired. The vehicle was left on the road side for bringing the mechanic to replace the tyre. On 02.06.2020, the vehicle was found missing. E-FIR No.011973/2020 was lodged at PS, Najafgarh. On 03.06.2020, OP was informed through agent. On 09.06.2020, the surveyor advised him to blacklist the vehicle from Transport Department, Haryana upon which application dated 11.06.2020 was given to the department that vehicle has been stolen on 11.06.2020. He has handed over two keys and copy of FIR to the OP. A legal notice dated 15.01.2021 was issued to the OP but in vain. The Police have filed untrace report which is accepted by the court. The claim was rejected as vehicle was left unattended at an isolated place. The claim has been wrongly rejected in view of the law laid down various Hon’ble Courts and Hon’ble NCDRC. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP has filed the reply with the averments that vehicle was insured with OP. The OP has immediately registered the claim vide no.7210314925 on receipt of information of theft of vehicle and appointed investigator “Triple P Associates” and report dated 09.09.2020 was submitted. It transpired that on 01.06.2020 at 6.00Pm the complainant has parkedthe vehicle at road side at old Khaira Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi after the bursting of tyre of the car and went to his residence Badshahpur, Gurgaon. On 02.06.2020 at 4.00 Pm he came back to the spot andfound the vehicle missing upon which e-FIR was lodged. There is gross violation of the condition no.4 and 8 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There is petrol pump at a distance of 200-300 meter from the spot and complainant did not make any effort to park the vehicle at Petrol Pump. The complainant has acted in a reckless manner. It is wrong that contents of legal notice are correct. The claim has been repudiated vide letter dated 20.11.2020. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.

3. Thecomplainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and denied the averments made in the written statements.

4. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

5. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Annexure – C1 to C6.

6. The OP has filed the affidavit of Sh. AmitChawla,in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the Ex.RW1/1 to RW-1/5.

7. We have heardLd. Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

8. It is clear from the material on record that complainant was the owner of the vehicle in question which was insured with OP-1. On 01.06.2020, complainant has parked the vehicle at 6.00 PM at Old Khaira Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi after the bursting of the tyrewhchwas found missing on the next day upon which FIR was lodged with PS, Najafgarh.

9. The claim has been rejected on the ground that complainant has violated condition no.4 & 8 of the insurance policy i.e. he has left the car unattended on the road side though he could have parked the car at the petrol pump which was at the distance of 200-300 meter from the spot.

10. The question is whether complainant was negligent while parking the car on the road side after the bursting of tyre and stepney was not in the working condition.

11. The theft of car is not in dispute. The Police have filed untrace report. The bursting of the tyre is not disputed by the OP. There is no evidence from the OP that stepney was in the working condition. The complainant has no option in such a scenario except to park the car on the road side. The parking of the car on the road side will not ipsofacto constitute wilful neglect on the part of the complainant. The parking of the car on the road side after bursting of tyre does not come within the ambit of wilful neglect on the part of the complainant. If it is assumed for the sake of arguments that there was breach of condition on the part of complainant even then OP ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. The OP cannot repudiate the claim in totality. In view of the settled legal position, the OP should have given 75%of claim on non-standard basis. Support is drawn from National Insurance Company v. NitinKhandelwal IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC) decided by Hon’bleNational Commission.

12. There is deficiency of service on the part of the OP in rejecting the claim even on non-standard basis.

13. The compliant of the complainant is allowed to the effect that complainant is entitled for 75% of the admissible claim on IDV value along with interest @6% from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 20.11.2020. The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental harassment, agony and litigation expenses. The OP is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @6% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment, agony and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 08.11.2024.