Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/164/2022

HEMANT KUMAR BHANSALI - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG GENERAL INS.CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Sep 2023

ORDER

`           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

RBT/Complaint Case No. 164/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Mr. Hemant Kumar Bhansali, M-2/54, Attam Vallabh Vihar, Plot No. 14, Sector 13, Rohini, North West Delhi 110085		Complainant
		Versus
	1.	TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., Through its General Manager/Principal Officer 301-308, Aggarwal Prestige Tower, IIIrd Floor, Plot No. 2, Road No. 44, Main Road, Pitampura, Delhi 110034		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		04.12.2018 26.07.2023 18.09.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a Maruti Eeco car through an agent which was duly insured by the Opposite Party. The period of the insurance was 15.09.2017 to midnight 14.09.2018. The total IDV value of the said car was     Rs. 3,25,000/-. The said policy was covering own damage and third party insurance and included damage arising out of loss or theft. The policy further included insurance cover for key replacement. The Complainant paid annual premium of Rs. 10,920/-. After receiving the said premium, Opposite Party issued a cover note of the policy which was of one page but never issued any terms and conditions relating to the policy. On 04-05/01/2018, the car of the Complainant had been stolen. A complaint regarding the theft had been duly lodged by the Complainant vide FIR No. 000574 at Shahbad Dairy, Policy Station. Complainant filed the claim form of Rs. 3,25,000/- with the Opposite Party along with all relevant documents. The Complainant also handed over one of the keys of the vehicle to the Opposite Party and further reported that the other key had been misplaced or lost. The said claim was accepted by the Opposite Party through its letter dated 13.11.2018 but it insisted on disbursing only 80 % of the total claim insured, as it insisted on deducting 20% from the total claim for loss of one key. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party several times and made several pleas and representations before the Opposite Party for disbursal of the full insurance amount without deducting 20% for the loss of one key, as even the key replacement had been insured in the said premium. But Opposite Party though accepted the claim of the Complainant on merit, had not disbursed any amount against the genuine claim of the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 3,25,000/- under the insurance policy cover, Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of  mental agony. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 75,000/- on account of litigation expenses and compensation of Rs. 53,625/- towards the interest @ 18% p.a. on the total insurance claim.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the claim is not maintainable. It is stated that the Complainant had submitted only one ignition key of the car and the Complainant did not submit the second original ignition key of the car. The Complainant submitted that he had lost the other original key of the car so he could not provide the second original key of the car. The act of the Complainant is a gross negligence and as per the terms of the policy the Complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from the Opposite Party. It is stated that at a good gesture the Opposite Party offered the Complainant to settle the claim on Known Standard Basis. The Complainant was offered 80 % of IDV of Rs. 3,25,000/- vide letter dated 13.11.2018. The Complainant did not accept the offer nor gave any reply to the letter. The Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Amit Chawla, Chief Manager Legal, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the following facts are not disputed:

1. That the claimant has purchased an insurance policy from the Opposite Party of his car. The IDV of the said car was Rs. 3,25,000/-.
2. The car was stolen and police report was lodged in this regard.
3. One original ignition key of the car was submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
4. The other i.e. second original ignition key of the car was not submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party on the ground that the said key had been lost.

7. Now, the question is that in the absence of or non production of the second key by the Complainant, whether the Complainant is entitled to claim the full IDV of the car. The settled law is that in such cases the amount of insurance is calculated on Known Standard Basis. Admittedly, in the present case the Opposite Party had offered 80 % of the IDV of the car which was reasonable and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the Complainant had lost the second original key of the car and he had not lodged any FIR in this regard nor intimated the same to the Opposite Party, we being it proper and in the interest of justice to direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of 80 % of the IDV i.e. Rs. 3,25,000/-, of the car. This amount shall be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Keeping in view the fact that the Complainant did not accept the offer of the Opposite Party to receive the claim on the basis of Known Standard Basis, we do not see any justification to award any litigation cost or any other cost on account of any harassment etc. as the Complainant himself has chosen to go for litigation by not accepting the offer of the Opposite Party for giving claim of 80 % of the IDV of the car.
8. Order announced on 18.09.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President