District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 386/2022.
Date of Institution:20.07.2022.
Date of Order:12.07.2023.
Himanshu son of Shri Sunder Singh Solanki, resident of House No. F-623, SGM Nagar, NIT, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
The Branch Manager/manager Claim, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., N.H.5-R/2, Near Badshah Khan Chowk, NIT, Faridabad.
…Opposite party
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Dipesh Vashisth, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Anuj Gupta, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the owner of vehicle No. HR-51-CC-6872. The said vehicle was insured with opposite party bearing policy No. 11300031200901470129 valid from 14.12.2020 to 13.12.2021. The above said vehicle was stolen for which a FIR No. 96 dated 02.04.2021 u/s 379 of IPC dated 02.04.2021 was registered in Police Station, NIT, Faridabad. Opposite party was also duly informed by the complainant with regard to the theft of the said vehicle. Despite the best efforts of the complainant and the police, said vehicle could not be found/traced till date and in the said FIR/case untraced report had already been filed in the court by the police. The complainant had duly claimed the insured amount from opposite party with regard to theft of said vehicle but on 25.3.2022 opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant by stating that “You remained negligent in not taking out the original key from the car inspite of the fact that you were having second key of car in your possession, therefore, you have violated condition No.4 of the insurance company”. It was pertinent to mention that the first key of the car in the desk board of the car of the complainant. There was no negligence on the part of the complainant. It was pertinent to mention that there was another keys of flat and almirah alongwith the first key of car. The complainant safely keeps these keys. The complainant sent legal notice dated 25.5.2022 to the opposite party through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) make the payment of the insured amount of the car, with regard to the above mentioned vehicle and insurance policy alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. to the complainant.
b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that as per knowledge derived from the record especially form the statement of complainant, the key of the car was remain/left inside the car, the car was remain unattended (which was gross negligenc eon the part of insured) and then the thet of car was committed by some unknown thief. Further, as per the case of the complainant , it was quite clear from the contents of FIR, that no immediate intimation to the police by calling 100 number was given immediately and vehicle in question was left un-attended with key inside the car, without any proper safeguard. So, the complainant was guilty of violating the condition No.4 of the insurance policy. From all these facts, it was crystal that the complainant had not properly safeguarded the vehicle as he left the key inside the car as well as left it unattended. In these circumstances, the claim was not found payable and the same was rightly rejected by the answering opposite party. As the complainant failed to intimate police and answering opposite party immediately as required under the law and policy since no immediate intimation to the police by calling 100 number was given, due to which no V.T and barricading was carried out, similarly answering opposite party was informed by the complainant on 06.04.2022, thus he had violated condition No1 of the insurance policy. There was no deficiency of service on the part of answering opposite party, because after receiving the claim intimation and claim form from the complainant on 06.04.2021 alleging theft of car in question on intervening night of 01.04.2021 and 2.4.2021. The same was investigated by the answering opposite party through its investigator. During investigation statement of insured/complainant were recorded in which he disclosed that the key of the car was left inside the car, the car was remain parked unattended. This was gross negligence as well as violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy because had the key of the car was not left inside the car, it might not have possible for theft to commit theft of the car. Therefore, the answering opposite party had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) make the payment of the insured amount of the car, with regard to the above mentioned vehicle and insurance policy alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. to the complainant. b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Himanshu, Ex.C-1 – insurance policy,, Ex. C-2 – FIR,, Ex.C-3 –order dated 24.08.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Faridabad, Ex.C-4 – repudiation letter , Ex.C-5 – legal notice,, Ex.C-6 – postal receipt,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Anju Narad, Assistant Manager, Legal (Consumer) Hub of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rangoli Branch, 1-2, NIT, Faridabad, Ex.R1 – statement of Himanshu, Ex.R-2 – repudiation letter, Ex.R-3 – insurance policy,, Ex.R-4 – General Exceptions.
6. After going through the evidence led by both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that it is evident from the statement of the complainant – Himanshu S/o Sunder Singh Solanki that the key of the car was left inside the car, the car was remain unattended and then theft of the car was committed by some unknown thief. It is quite clear from the contents of FIR that no immediate intimation to the police by calling 100 number was given immediately and vehicle in question was left un-attended with key inside the car, without any proper safeguard. So, the complainant is guilty of violating the condition No.4 of the insurance policy.
7. As such, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in repudiating claim of the complainant.
8. Resultantly, the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 12.07.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
