DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 103/2014
D.No._______________________ Date: ___________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
DEEPAK VERMA,
S/o SH. RAJINDER VERMA,
R/o 51-A, SAINI ENCLAVE,
KARKARDOOMA, DELHI-110092.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
TATA AIG GENE. INS. Co. LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS MANAGER/DIRECTOR),
301-308, 3rd FLOOR, AGGARWAL PRESTIGE MALL,
PLOT No.2, ROAD No.44, NEAR M2K CINEMA,
RANI BAGH, PITAM PURA, NEW DELHI-110034.
ALSO AT: PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK,
NICHOLAS PIRAMAL TOWER, 9th FLOOR,
GANPATRAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL,
MUMBAI-400013. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 22.01.2014 Date of decision:05.04.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPunder Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant being the registered owner of the vehicle i.e. Mahindra XUV 500 bearing Regn. no. DL-1CM-7636,
CC No.103/2014 Page 1 of 7
engine no.4B17636 & chassis no.6B74305 and the vehicle was insured with OP since 16.03.2012 to 15.03.2013 (mid-night) and availing the insurance services and the complainant paid the annual premium of Rs.30,098/- to OP. On 01.12.2012, the complainant went through his said car to attend an Engagement Function at Red Chilly Restaurant, Opp.-Reebok Showroom, Pushkar Enclave, Delhi where the complainant parked his car cautiously at the parking located near Red Chilly Restaurant where employee/guard of the said restaurant was also stationed to guard the vehicles parked at the said parking because of frequent egress and ingress of vehicles.The position of the parked vehicle is necessary to be changed from time to time and therefore the keys of the vehicle was handed over by the complainant to the guard of the said parking like others who were also parking the vehicle at the said parking space and at about 8:45 p.m., the complainant approached the said parking space but he found that his car was not there and he made his best search of his vehicle but it could not be traced and subsequently, a FIR no. 280/2012 u/s 379 of IPC was registered at P.S. Paschim Vihar on 02.12.2012 and later on untraced report was filed by the police of P.S. Paschim Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter, the complainant approached the office of OP on 03.12.2012 and duly reported the theft of his vehicle at the office of OP and the complainant also completed all formalities as required
CC No.103/2014 Page 2 of 7
for lodging the claim and as per general practice, an investigator was appointed by OP to investigate the case and on the basis of investigator report which reveals that “on that fateful day, after parking your vehicle in front of the Reebok Showroom Pushkar Enclave, you went on to attend the Engagement Function inside Red Chili Restaurant and after placing one key on the unguarded key board, we are unable to understand your said move as there was not any provision for valet parking or proper security and thus it is evident that the second ignition key was stolen from the key stand and please note that placing keys at an unguarded key stand open and accessible to public clearly shows your neglectful practice which eventually led to the said loss”, and the claim of the complainant regarding theft of the said vehicle was repudiated and the complainant was informed in this regard vide letter dated 16.04.2013 and in response to letter, the complainant sent a reply dated 03.07.2013vide speed post. The complainant further alleged that the observation of the investigator is contrary to the factum matrix, in fact the complainant has taken all possible steps to safeguard the vehicle from any loss and damage and there was a guard sitting at the key board and he was appointed by the Red Chili Restaurant and all the guests of Red Chili Restaurant placed the keys at the same key board which fact has been duly interrogated and investigated by the investigator of OP. The
CC No.103/2014 Page 3 of 7
complainant further alleged that the complainant has been continuously paying the installment of Rs.26,575/- p.m. to HDFC Bank Ltd. as the said car was financed by the HDFC Bank Ltd. and the complainant sent a legal notice dated 15.10.2013 to OP through Regd. Post/Courier to make/release the legitimate claim amount of the said car within the period of 15 days and has suffered a loss and further alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to pay the IDV of car for a sum of Rs.11,82,750/- alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of theft of the said car till its realization as well as compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental, physical agony and harassment. The complainant has also sought an amount of Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.
3. Earlier, Counsel for OP has appeared and has filed vakalatnama on 26.03.2014 and copy of complaint alongwith documents were supplied to Counsel for OP and has sought time to file written statement but despite giving opportunity, OP failed to file its reply/written statement. But none has appeared on behalf of OP on the adjourned date i.e. 22.04.2014nor any reply on behalf of OP was filed & as such OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.04.2014.
CC No.103/2014 Page 4 of 7
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of Insurance Policy bearing policy no.010060812600 for the period from 16.03.2012 to 15.03.2013 (mid-night), copy of letter dated 28.03.2012 sent by OP to the complainant, copy of receipt dated 21.03.2012, copy of FIR no.280 dated 02.12.2012, copy of letter dated nil sent by the complainant to National Crime Record Bureau, New Delhi for updating the status of stolen vehicle, copy of letter dated 15.01.2013 sent by the complainant to the Regional Transport Authority, copy of registration certificate, copy of voter ID card, copy of letter dated nil sent by OP to the complainant, copy of repudiation letter dated 16.04.2013, copy of reply dated 03.07.2013 sent by the complainant to OP, copy of letter dated 10.07.2013 and copy of legal notice dated 15.10.2013 sent by the complainant through his Counsel to OP alongwith postal receipts and courier receipt.
5. During the proceedings of the case, Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied upon following authorities:
i) In Appeal (Civil) no.3409 of 2008 in case entitled National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 08.05.2008.
ii) In Civil Appeal No.2703 of 2010 in case entitled Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 25.03.2010.
iii) II (2006) CPJ 83 (NC) in case entitled United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh decided by Hon’ble National Commission, Delhi on 23.12.2005.
CC No.103/2014 Page 5 of 7
iv) Revision Petition no.454 of 2013 in case entitled Baljeet Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. decided by Hon’ble National Commission, Delhi on 02.12.2013.
v) In F.A. No. FA/81/2014 in case entitled The Bajaj Allianz Gene. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs.Smt. Mantu Mondal & ANR. decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi on 22.10.2014.
vi) In Appeal No. FA/14/17 in case entitled IffcoTokio Gene. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. DulichandSahu decided by Hon’ble State Commission, (Chhatisgarh) on 30.01.2015.
6. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears thateven after receiving summon of this case from this forum, OP has kept mum and has not bothered to answer the case of the complainant.
7. On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his claim to OP but OP did not pass the claim of the complainant. Moreover, OP has neither chosen to contest the case nor has filed surveyor report. Accordingly, OP ought to have passed the claim of the complainant which OP has not passed. Accordingly, OP is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
8. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.11,82,750/- being the IDV of the car.
CC No.103/2014 Page 6 of 7
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- ascompensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- cost of litigation cost.
9. The above amount shall be paid by OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. 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 5thday of April, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.103/2014 Page 7 of 7
