Delhi

North

CC/80/2017

PANKAJ KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE GENERAL MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

ARUN YAAV

27 Jul 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

 

CC No.: 80/2017.

Sh. Pankaj Kumar

S/o Sh. Ram Shakal Sani/ Singh,

H. No. 227, gali No.7,

Near Balaji Mandir, Chaman Vihar,

Loni, Ghaziabad,

Uttar Pradesh.        

             

Also at

A-251, Gali No.5,

A-5 Block, Sonia Vihar,

Delhi-110094.                                                           …                                           Complainant

                                                                                                Vs

The General Manager,

M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Regd. & Head office at

803 A, 8^th Floor, Tower C,

Konnectus Building,

Opp. New Delhi Railway Station,

Bhavbhuti Marg,

Delhi-110002                                                            …                                           Opposite Party

ORDER

27/07/2023

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

(1)          The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that the Complainant’s Vehicle No. DL-5S-AL-1300 (bearing engine No. MC38EEDGJ000083, Chasis No.00117 Make and Model 2013 Karizma ZMR) was insured vide policy cover note no.39010231146202934182 which was valid from 15.11.2015 to 14.11.2016. On 18.06.2016, Complainant parked his vehicle near  Town hall, Delhi at 06:20 PM. When the Complainant came back at 07:30 PM, he found that his vehicle was not parked there. The Complainant immediately informed the police. A Copy of FIR is filed with the complaint as Ex.Cw.1/3. In this regard,  F.I.R. No.018099/16 P.S E- Police Station, was registered and but the vehicle of the Complainant could not be traced by the Police despite best efforts. The Complainant intimated about the theft of vehicle to the OP but OP suggested the Complainant to wait till Police complete the investigation. It has been alleged that on 06.01.2017, the Complainant submitted the form of Appointment of surveyor as per OP's direction but OP postponed the matter by this way or that way. Therefore, the Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 21.02.2017 and in response, the OP sent a vague reply dated 03.03.2017 to delay the matter. In these circumstances, the Complainant has filed the present Complainant stating that non-settlement of claim of the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, he has sought compensation of his Karizma bike which was stolen and compensation of Rs.71,260/- equivalent to the price of the vehicle for harassment, mental agony and also towards litigation expenses, deficiency in services etc.

 

2.           Accordingly, notice was issued to the OP and in response, the OP has filed its reply stating that the complaint of the Complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the Complainant has not approached the Hon'ble Forum with clean hands and has not disclosed the true and correct fact in order to mislead the Hon'ble Forum. The Complainant has presented the facts of the case in skewed manner to make the Hon'ble Forum believe that OP insurance company is sitting on the claim and is not deciding his claim whereas in fact the claim of the Complainant has already been repudiated within 4 days of intimation about incident to insurance company vide repudiation letter dated 10.01.2017. Copy of repudiation letter which Complainant is concealing has been filed and exhibited as Annexure-B. It has further been stated by the OP that the Complainant has violated the terms and condition of the insurance policy and as such, the Complainant himself being violator cannot seek the relief under the benevolent provision of the Consumer Protection Act. The Complainant has failed to intimate insurance company in terms of policy and as such, has violated policy conditions. There is violation of the terms and condition No.1 of the policy as the theft took place on 18.06.2016 whereas intimation about theft was given after inordinate delay of 203 days (6months, 19 days) for the first time only on 06.01.2017. On account of delayed intimation, the OP was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same. The fact of intimation to company on 06.01.2017 for appointment of investigator/ surveyor is admitted by Complainant in its complaint. The Complainant has wrongly alleged that OP Company directed the Complainant to wait till the police complete investigation and thus is making concocted story to cover up his fault.  As there is inordinate delay in intimation to OP as such complaint needs dismissal. Legal notice of Complainant was duly replied by the Insurance Company wherein inter alia Complainant was informed that letter of repudiation of claim was duly sent to him. Even after receipt of said reply, Complainant never inquired about repudiation letter, this clearly suggest that he was well aware of repudiation and made concocted story.

3.            The OP has quoted following citations in support of his contention on the issue of late intimation of theft to the Insurance Company:-

1. Judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha in Civil Appeal No.6739 of 2010 decided on 17.08.2010;
2. Judgement passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2479 of 2015 decided on 11.01.2016;
3. Judgement passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of NIC Vs. Charanjeet Singh in FA No.1439/2007;
4. Judgement passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Rang Lal (deceased) Vs. Manager UIIC in Revision Petition No. 1362 of 2011 decided on 01.09.2011;
5. Judgement passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Attar Singh Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd  in Revision Petition No. 3614 of 2012.

 

4.           It has further been contended by the OP that case of the Complainant cannot be decided under summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Muni Mahesh Patel IV (2016) CPJ 1 (SC)” has stated that the Civil Court is the appropriate forum to decide case which are complicated in nature and in which oral and documentary evidences are required to be led. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the above said matter, specifically stated that the proceedings before the Commission are essential summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated.

5.            Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence put forth by the complainant & OPs and it has been observed that:-

1. The vehicle/ Karizma Bike was stolen on 18.06.2016 and the FIR was lodged on the same day.
2. The OP has stated that the repudiation letter dated dated 10-01-2017 was sent to complainant through speed post but it failed to produce any evidence to prove that the repudiation letter was duly served upon the complainant.
3. The OP has repudiated the claim on the ground of late intimation of the theft of the vehicle and has also cited various judgments, as discussed at para-4 above, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and NCDRC in support of his contention. However, in this regard, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA No. 1069/2022 passed on 11.02.2022 in the matter of Jaina Construction Company Vs. OICL is relevant in this matter wherein it has been held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim on the ground of late intimation of theft if the FIR was lodged in time. Hence, repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the OP is un-justified.
4. The OP has also referred a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Muni Mahesh Patel IV (2016) CPJ 1 (SC)” disputing the competency of this commission to decide this case. in this regard, it has been observed that there is no complication in this matter for which oral or documentary evidences are to be led. The contents of the FIR lodged on the date of the theft i.e. 18.06.2016 and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaina Construction Vs. OICL supports the case of the Complainant and this Commission is very well competent to adjudicate this consumer dispute.

               

6.           In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficiency in service of the OP (M/s M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.) in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.  Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP (M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.) to pay IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.71,260/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty only)  within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 06.01.2017 (date of filing of claim with OP) till the date of the payment. Besides, the OP is also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant, for the mental pain, agony and harassment. It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

7.            Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                                  DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

Member                                                                           President       

                                             DCDRC-1 (North)                                                             DCDRC-1 (North)