Delhi

North

RBT/CC/163/2022

SH. PREETINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

28 Apr 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

RBT/CC No/163/2022

In the matter of

Preetinder Singh  

S/o Sh. Jagdev Singh

R/o House No.827, Street No.11

TRIPRI Town, Patiala

Punjab                                                                                   ……Complainant

                                                        

Versus

TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd.

301-308, 3^rd floor, Aggarwal Prestige mall

Plot No.-2, Road No.-44

Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh

Pitampura, New Delhi-110034                                                …Opposite Party                                    

ORDER
28/04/2023

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present complaint has been received by way of transfer vide order No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn./Transfer/2022/330 dated 16/04/2022 of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission where the matter was transferred from DCDRC-V (North West) to this Commission. 

1. This complaint has been filed by Sh. Preetinder Singh, the complainant against TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., OP with the allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  During  the pendency of the complaint an application was  moved by  the complainant stating that he has shifted his residence from Delhi to Punjab and filed a fresh address.                  
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that, the complainant got insured his Royal Enfield Motorcycle Model-Classic 350 Silver bearing Chasis No.ME3U3S5C1GK672478 with OP vide policy No.0145139244.  The period of insurance cover was from 19/09/2016 to 18/09/2017.  It has been stated by the complainant that no policy terms and conditions were supplied with the policy document. 
3. The insured vehicle was financed by Capital First Ltd. for which the complainant has been regularly paying an EMI of Rs.4684/- for the total loan amount of Rs.92,000/-. 
4. On the intervening night of 05/03/2017 to 06/03/2017, the insured vehicle was stolen from the front of the complainant’s residence.  It has been stated by the complainant that in the afternoon of 06/03/2017, when the complainant found that the insured vehicle has been stolen, he immediately informed the OP on their online portal for which claim docket No.800042008 with reference No.0820341701 was generated.   
5. It has been further stated by the complainant that he had gone to PS: Hari Nagar, where he was given an MV Theft e-FIR form and asked the complainant to provide his ID proof and photocopy of the RC of the insured vehicle. However, after submitting the form no receiving/acknowledgement was given.  Further the complainant was asked by the officer-in-charge to collect the copy of the FIR in the evening as the computer system was not working.  After two days the complainant was asked to lodge online FIR, therefore, on 10/03/2017 an online complaint bearing LR No.306529/2017 was lodged however, by mistake it was registered under the column ‘Lost article’ and got mentioned as Royal Enfield Classic 350 Motorcycle instead of FIR for stolen motorcycle.
6. On 20/03/2017, the complainant was contacted by Mr. Ashok Gosai, the surveyor appointed by the OP, seeking FIR and other relevant papers.  It was then the complainant was informed by the surveyor that the FIR had been lodged under the wrong head “Lost article” instead of “Stolen vehicle”.  Thereafter, the complainant immediately got FIR No.008742 dated 23/03/2017 under e-Police station Hari Nagar under section 379 of IPC registered.  An Untrace Report dated 09/05/2017 was issued by Ld.ACMM-01, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. On 01/04/2017, the surveyor visited and examined the site and informed the complainant that it would approximately take three month to process the claim.
7. Despite the fact that, the complainant personally visited the Rani Bagh branch office of OP several times and explained the sequence of events for delay in registration of FIR, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 08/09/2017 on the ground of breach of policy condition No.1 & 8.   A representation vide letter dated 15/09/2017, was made by the complainant explaining the events but of no avail. 
8. Feeling aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim the complainant has alleged deficiency in services and unfair trade practice by OP with the prayer for direction to OP to pay IDV of the insured vehicle i.e Rs.1,24,801/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of loss till  realization; compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of physical and mental harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.
9. The complainant has annexed the Motor two wheeler certificate cum policy schedule, information report dated 10/03/2017, FIR dated 23/03/2017, copy of the untraced report dated 09/05/2017, Repudiation letter dated 08/09/2017 and representation dated 14/09/2017 received by OP on 15/09/2017 and reply thereof dated 28/09/2017, copy of the registration certificate and the claim status with the complaint.
10. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP; thereafter written statement was filed on their behalf.
11. OP has taken several preliminary objections in their defence such as: the complaint was not maintainable as there was suppression of material facts; the complainant was negligent and there was a delay of 17 days in registration of FIR, thereby violating the condition No.1 & 8 of the policy terms and conditions.  They have  also reproduced condition No.1 & 8 herein :-

Condition No.1:

Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.Every letter claim writ summons and/or loss process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured.Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquestor fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy.In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.

Condition No.8:

The due observance and fulfilment of the Terms, Conditions and Endorsements of this Policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statement and answer in the said proposal shall be condition precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this Policy.

 

12.  It has been submitted that as the complainant had failed to intimate the police about the theft of the insured vehicle immediately therefore, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 08/09/2017.  As there was a delay in informing the police authority the complainant had prejudiced the timely investigation and frustrated the efforts for recovery of the insured vehicle.  Further, the complainant had failed to give any reasonable cause for the delay. 
13. It has been denied that whenever the complainant visited the OP he was not attended at priority and replied promptly. Rest of the content of the complaint have been denied with the prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
14. The terms and conditions of the two wheeler package policy along with the Repudiation letter dated 08/09/2017 have been annexed with the written statement.
15. Rejoinder to the written statement of the OP was filed by the complainant, where the contents of the complaint have been repeated and those of the written statement have been denied.  The complainant has reiterated that he had visited Police Station to get an FIR registered, however the same could not be registered as he was informed by the officer on duty that the computer system was not working and the complainant should come the following day and finally after two days the complainant was asked to register an online  FIR.
16. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where the content of the complaint has been reiterated.  The complainant has relied upon the policy document and has got the same exhibited as Ex-CW-1, copy of the screenshot with respect to information to the OP dated 06/03/2017 is Ex-CW-2; copy of the FIR registered online on 10/03/2017 under the head “lost article” as Ex.CW-3.  The complainant has also relied upon the copy of the FIR bearing No.008742 dated 23/03/2017, untraced report dated 09/05/2017 as Ex.-CW-4 and Ex-CW-5 respectively.  Copy of the repudiation letter dated 08/09/2017 is Ex.CW-6 and the copy of the letter dated 28/09/2017 is Ex.CW-7 (though it is mentioned as CW-14).
17. OP has got examined Sh.Sanjay Bhagat, Vice President and Authorised Representative on their behalf.  The contents of the written statement have been reiterated and they have got the Special Power of Attorney exhibited  as Ex.RW-1/A.  The policy terms and conditions are exhibited as Ex.RW-1/1, Repudiation letter dated 08/09/2017 as Ex.RW-1/2 and they have also relied upon the copy of the letter dated 28/09/2017.
18. We have heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant who is appearing through Video conferencing and Ld. Counsel for OP.  We have also perused the material placed on record.  The complainant is aggrieved by the repudiation of his Theft claim vide letter dated 08/09/2017 by OP.  The said claim has been rejected on the ground that even though the act of theft had occurred on 06/03/2017, the FIR was lodged on 23/03/2017, which is 17 days later than the date of occurrence of theft, therefore resulting in breach of Policy condition  No.1 & 8. 

 As per the Policy condition No.1:

Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require.Every letter claim writ summons and/or loss process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured.Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquestor fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy.In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the Company in securing the conviction of the offender.

 

As per the Policy condition No.8:

The due observance and fulfilment of the Terms, Conditions and Endorsements of this Policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statement and answer in the said proposal shall be condition precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this Policy.

 

19.  The factum of the theft is not in dispute.  The complainant has stated that immediately OP was intimated regarding the incident of theft which has not been denied by OP.  The only ground of repudiation is delay in intimation to the police. If we look at the Ex.CW-3, the copy of information report dated 10/03/2017.  The complaint has been registered under the head “lost article” with property type  and property description as “Royal Enfield Classic 350  Motor Cycle”.  In the FIR dated 23/03/2017 (Ex.CW-4), the complainant has stated that:

Mistakenly I lodged FIR for documents only for first. I have reported to Hari Nagar Police Station about loss of vehicle on 06/03/2017.There was delay in filing FIR so I tried to file online but mistakenly I filed for loss of docs, therefore, there is a delay of filing FIR for loss of vehicle.Also tried to enter this information in delay of filing FIR space but no option appeared while filling the details.

 

20. Thus it is clear that the complainant had registered online complaint on 10/03/2017 and had informed the OP on the same day of incident of theft i.e. 06/03/2017. Once the complainant has registered a complaint with police on 10/03/2017, even under a wrong head, he has intimated the police.  There is a delay of three days in registration of the online FIR by the complainant but, the same has been explained by the complainant. 
21. Being so when the complainant has explained the reason of delay in registration of FIR, thus there is no ground to disbelieve the explanation given by the complainant and at the same time OP has not brought anything on record in rebuttal.  The rejection of the theft claim of the complainant on baseless ground is deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.   
22. Therefore, in the fact and circumstance of the present complaint and in the interest of justice, we direct OP to pay Rs.1,24,801/- being the IDV of the insured vehicle  alongwith interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realisation.  We further award a compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment, inclusive of litigation  expenses.
23. The order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order, in case of non compliance, OP shall be liable to pay an interest @9% on 1,39,801/- (Rs.1,24,801/-+Rs.15,000/-) from the date of filing of complaint till realisation. 

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)                                President