Delhi

North West

CC/1298/2016

SANDEEP RANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

27 Feb 2020

ORDER

­­DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

 

CC No: 1298/2016

D.No.________________                             Dated: ___________________     

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

SANDEEP RANA,

S/o SH. JAI BHAGWAN,

R/o 131, PKT-1, SEC-25,

ROHINI, DELHI-110085.                                          … COMPLAINANT

 

 

 

Versus

 

1. TATA AIG GENE. INS. CO. LTD.,

    THROUGH ITS MANAGER,

    301-308, 3^rd FLOOR,

    AGGARWAL PRESTIGE MALL, PLOT No.-2,

    ROAD No.-44, NEAR M2K CINEMA,

    RANI BAGH, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI-110034. 

 

2. RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD. (FINANCER),

    THROUGH ITS MANAGER,

    TRIBHUWAN COMPLEX, 180-181,

    NEW FRIENDS COLONY,

    NEAR SURYA HOTEL, NEW DELHI-110065.  … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)

 

 

 

 

CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

               SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

     MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER   

                                                          Date of Institution: 16.12.2016                                       Date of decision:21.05.2020

 

SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a vehicle i.e. Toyota Fortuner 4x2

CC No. 1298/2016                                                                         Page 1 of 9

          bearing Regn. No. HR-26-CB-0004 and the said vehicle was financed by OP-2 and the said vehicle was insured with OP-1 vide policy no. 0155384608-00 w.e.f. 08.07.2015 to 07.07.2016 (mid-night) and the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.18,60,000/-. The complainant further alleged that the complainant and his friend in the night of 17.06.2016 went to a hotel to take Dinner which was opposite of JK Residency, Mahindra Park, Rani Bagh, Delhi and after dinner, when the complainant came out from hotel after dinner, the complainant and his friend found the said vehicle missing and the complainant searched the said vehicle here and there but the said vehicle could not be found. Thereafter, the complainant informed the Police Department, Insurance Company and Transport Department also and due to this mis-happening/theft of the said vehicle, the complainant and his family members are mentally disturbed and the complainant approached OP-1 for theft claim of the said vehicle and supplied the required documents as asked by them but there is no proper response by OP-1 nor releasing the theft claim of the said vehicle and lastly repudiated the claim and all the promises by OP-1 for the prompt and honest services are demolished by their own acts as the genuine claim of stolen car is not released till filing of the case which clearly shows deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and due to the act of OP-1, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment which cannot be compensated in rupees

CC No. 1298/2016                                                                         Page 2 of 9

          and OP-1 failed to perform the duty for which OP-1 is bound and hence there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying fordirection to OP-1 to release the claim of the stolen vehicle bearing Regn. No. HR-26-CB-0004 alongwith interest for delay as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.

3.       OP-1 & OP-2 have been contesting the case and filed their separate written statement. OP-1 submitted in its written statement that on intimation of the claim under the policy on 17.06.2016,OP-1 immediately deputed M/s All India Claim Recovery Consultants for verification and investigation of the claim and after thorough verification and investigation of the claim it transpired from the statement of Sh. Karambir Singh, friend of the complainant which is duly supported statement of Manjit Rana, brother of the complainant on 16.06.2016, the said Karambir Singh had come to Delhi and stayed at Crown Plaza Hotel, Sector-11, Near Rithala Metro Station, Delhi and at about 9:00 P.M. Sh. Sandeep Rana (complainant) came to meet Karambir Singh at Crown Plaza Hotel and at around 10:00 P.M. both came out of the Hotel to go to Dust Site at Tronica City, Harampur, Ghaziabad, however, when the complainant tried to open the lock of insured vehicle, he could not

CC No. 1298/2016                                                                         Page 3 of 9

          succeed to open as remote was not working. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant called his brother Manjit Rana to bring 2^nd remote key of the said insured vehicle and after this his brother came and insured vehicle was started with 2^nd remote key and both the complainant and Karambir Singh went to Tronica City in the insured vehicle and the complainant kept the 1^st remote key inside the dash board and on returning to Delhi at about 2:00 A.M. on 17.06.2016 they stopped and parked the insured vehicle at near Mahindra Park Chowk, Opp.-J.K. Residency Hotel, Rani Bagh, Pitam Pura, Delhi and went to J.K. Residency for having dinner and after half an hour when they came back they did not found the said vehicle. OP-1 further submitted that from the cause of theft, the complainant left one ignition key of the said vehicle inside the dash board due to which theft of the said vehicle took place and the subject vehicle could not be stolen, if, proper and reasonable precaution would had been taken by the complainant in keeping ignition keys of the said vehicle with him and the complainant failed to take proper safety and care in parking the subject vehicle and act of the complainant amounts to negligent and careless and therefore, in terms of the policy, the complainant is not entitled to the claim amount and accordingly, the claim of the complainant was repudiated. OP-1 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, however, in gross violation of

CC No. 1298/2016                                                                         Page 4 of 9

          the same, the complainant left one ignition key of the said vehicle inside the dash board while parking the subject vehicle, due to which the alleged thief/thieves took advantage of the same and the vehicle was stolen with the access to its key. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant has not acted like a reasonable and prudent person and has left the vehicle unattended in idling conditions with its key and due to this recklessness, theft of the said vehicle took place, which is a violation in terms of conditions 4 and condition 8 of the policy and as such the complainant is not entitled to the claim amount and accordingly, the claim was repudiated by OP-1 vide its letter dated 03.11.2016. OP-1 further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

4.       In the reply of OP-2 submitted that the complaint against OP-2 does not disclose any cause of action against OP-2 and no relief has been prayed against OP-2. OP-2 further submitted that the complainant had approached OP-2 for grant of New Commercial Vehicle Loan and after going through the request of the complainant, OP-2 sanctioned loan facility for the sum of Rs.18,40,000/- and the complainant agreed to repay the loan amount alongwith interest @ 14.01 % back to the claimant in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.42,824/- and accordingly an amount of Rs. 18,40,000/- was released in favour of the complainant and from this amount a vehicle/equipment make Toyota Fortuner/FC4 INTO2MT Diesel

CC No. 1298/2016                                                                         Page 5 of 9

          bearing Regn. No. HR-26-CB-0004, engine no. 1KDU338313 and chassis no. MBJ11JV6104 017218 was financed and the same was under exclusive hypothecation of OP-2 and the complainant after availing the loan facility has paid some ofEMIs.OP-2 further submitted that the complainant had executed a loan cum Hypothecation agreement alongwith a demand promissory note and further a letter of continuity was executed by the complainant in favour of OP-2 on 17.06.2013 which bound the complainant to repay the loan amount as per terms & conditions of the loan agreement, failing which OP-2 was competent to take actions as per terms & conditions of the loan agreement. OP-2 further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed

5.       The complainantfiled separate rejoinders and denied the contentions of OP-1 & OP-2.

6.       In order to prove his case, the complainantfiled his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of Certificate of Insurance and Policy Schedule Form 51 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 issued by OP-1, copy of R.C. of the vehicle, copy of driving license, copy of FIR, copy of letter dated 21.06.2016 regarding information stolen the said vehicle sent by the complainant to National Crime Records Bureau, R.K. Puram, Delhi, copy of letter dated 21.06.2016 sent by the complainant to the MLO, RTO, Chandigarh, copy of letter dated 21.06.2016 sent by the complainant to MLO/DTO, Road Traffic

CC No. 1298/2016                                                                         Page 6 of 9

          Authority RTO, Chandigarh, copy of order dated 13.10.2016 passed by ACMM-01, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi and copy of repudiation letter dated 03.11.2016 of OP-1.

 7.      On the other hand, Sh.Mohd. Azhar Wasi, Vice President and AR of OP-1 filed hisevidence by way of an affidavit which is on the basis of the written statement of OP-1. OP-1 also filed copy of Specific Power of Attorney, copy of Intimation Cum Preliminary Claims Form-AutoSecureCar Insurance, copy of Investigation Report dated 13.08.2016, copies of repudiation letters dated 26.09.2016 & 03.11.2016 and copy of Auto Secure Private Car Package Policy. OP-1 & OP-2 also filed written arguments. 

8.       This forum has considered the case of the complainant and OP-1 in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record. As per the case established the vehicle i.e. Toyota Fortuner Car bearing Registration No. HR-26-CB-0004 was insured with the OP-1 vide policy no. 0155384608-00 which was valid from 08.07.2015 to 07.07.2016 on IDV of Rs.18,60,000/- and OP-1 has not disputed the factum of theft of the vehicle.

9.       The sole defence raised by OP-1 is towards contravention of condition no.4 & condition no.8 of the insurance policy and as such the company repudiated the claim.

10.     We have considered he defence taken by OP-1. When the 1^st ignition key of the vehicle stopped functioning/working the complainant called his brother to bring 2^nd ignition key of the vehicle. It clearly

CC No. 1298/2016                                                                         Page 7 of 9

          shows that the remote system of the 1^st ignition key has stopped working and with this knowledge in mind, the complainant kept the 1^st ignition key in the dashboard of the vehicle and the complainant would not have thought that the vehicle would be stolen. Unless an entry is made inside the vehicle the 1^st ignition key of the vehicle could not have been taken out from the dashboard of the vehicle and it is hard to believe that the complainant would go to the hotel without locking the vehicle with 2^nd ignition key. Thus, it cannot be said that the complainant was negligent in keeping the vehicle in safe custody. So, it appears that OP-1 has taken a false plea and case of OP-1 cannot be believed. We are of further opinion that OP-1 has deliberately repudiated the claim of the complainant and thus denial by OP-1 of the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. This Forum is of opinion that OP-1 ought to have passed the claim and due to illegal rejection/repudiation of the claim of the complainant we hold OP-1 guilty of deficiency in service.

11.     Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:

i)        To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.18,60,000/- being the IDV of the said vehicle and complainant to execute proper forms in favour of OP-1.

ii)       To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.80,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment.

CC No. 1298/2016                                                                         Page 8 of 9

iii)      To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

12.     The above amount shall be paid by OP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the dateof payment. If OP-1 fails to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

13.     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 21^stday of May, 2020.

 

 

 

 

BARIQ AHMED                            USHA KHANNA            M.K. GUPTA

   (MEMBER)                                  (MEMBER)                    (PRESIDENT)

 

 

CC No. 1298/2016                                                                         Page 9 of 9

UPLOADED BY: SATYENDRA JEET