CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII
DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN
SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077
CASE NO.CC/434/15
Date of Institution:- 17.08.2015
Order Reserved on:- 03.05.2024
Date of Decision:- 13.05.2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Dr. Sachin Vijay,
B-6/75, SF, Safderjung Enclave,
New Delhi - 110029
.….. Complainant
VERSUS
- The Manager
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
C-30, Community Centre, Naraina,
New Delhi – 110028
- The Managing Director
T R Sawhney Motors P. Ltd.
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
.…..Opposite Party
Suresh Kumar Gupta, President
- The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thatOP-1 is the insurance company whereas OP-2 is the authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd. On 26.12.2012, he has purchased MarutiEcco bearing registration No.DL8CU7527 from OP-2 and car insurance was arranged from OP-1. During the intervening night of 17/18.01.2013 the said vehicle was stolen from his premises upon which he went to Police station and lodged the FIR but he was directed for wait for some time as his another car was stolen in December, 2013 which was found after 5-6 days. The vehicle was not found even after 3-4 days upon which Police lodged the FIR on 23.01.2013. The investigation was carried on and untraced report was filed. He has informed OP-2 on the day of theft and assurance was given to do the needful.There was no response from the OPs even after two months upon which he contacted OP-1. It was told that proceedings have not been initiated of the car theft. He made a request to proceed with the claim. He has given reply to the OP-1 for delay in lodging the FIR and intimating the OP-1. On 20.05.2013, he received a letter that his claim has been repudiated. The repudiation is not in accordance with the fact which calls for deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.
- The defence of OP-1 was struck off on 11.04.2016.
- The OP-2 has filed the reply with the averments that OP-2 is a dealer and has not taken any charges for providing services to the complainant. The claim was repudiated by OP-1 on the basis of delayed intimation and use of vehicle for commercial purposes. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP-2. OP-2 is not a party to insurance agreement so there is no liability on the part of OP-2. OP-2 is not bound to give the intimation of theft to the OP-1. The complainant has never informed OP-2 about the theft. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP-2.
- The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments of the written statement and reiterating the stand taken in the complaint.
- The parties were directed the lead the evidence.
- The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Ex.CE/1 to CE/4.
- The OP-2did not appear thereafter and accordingly proceeded ex-parte on 13.02.2017.
- The parties did not appear to address the arguments. Written arguments of the complainant are on record so the case was reserved for orders on 03.05.2024.
- The material on the record shows that purchase of vehicle in question from OP-2 and its insurance from OP-1 is not in dispute.
- The theft of vehicle has taken place during the intervening night of 17/18.01.2013 qua which FIR was lodged on 23.01.2013. The copy of FIR is annexure CW2 (Ex.CE/2). The Police have filed the untraced report. The copy of FIR was sent by mail to OP-2 as apparent from Annexure-CW3 (Ex.CW/3). The investigator has demanded documents and clarification from the complainant which is apparent from annexure-CW4 (Ex.CE4) which were duly supplied and claim was repudiated vide letter dated 20.05.2013.
- The complainant has placed on record letter dated 01.04.2014 issued by the OP-1 which shows that there was delayed intimation to the OP-1 as well as vehicle was used for commercial purposes which led to the rejection of the claim.
- The complainant has issued a letter dated 12.08.2014 to the OP-1 which shows that he used the vehicle for non-commercial pick and drop services of the staff members as well as few of his students.
- The complainant has taken the package policy for private vehicle. Under a contract of insurance, it is extremely important for the policy holder to abide by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy can led to rejection of the claim. The right and obligations of the parties are determined on the basis of the wording of the policy of the insurance.
- In the instant case, the policy holder has availed the car insurance policy for his personal use. The claim was rejected on the premise that there was delayed intimation as well as vehicle was used for commercial purposes.
- The delayed intimation of the theft of the car to the insurance company is no longer a valid issue.In Gurshinder Singh vsSriram General Insurance Co. 2020 (11) SCC, it was held by their lordship that delayed intimation to the insurance company would not forfeit the total insurance claim if an FIR has been lodged immediately within a reasonable time and all other conditions are met.
- In AmalenduSahoovsOriental Insurance Co. Ltd., it was held by their lordship that if any condition of the policy has been violated the claim might be settled on a non-standard basis up to 75% of otherwise admissible claim.
- The one of the grounds is the use of the car for commercial purposes and this fact is denied by the complainant. OP-1 has been proceeded ex-parte. The OP-1 did not come forward to contest the complaint. The best possible evidence to show that vehicle in question was used for commercial purposes was with OP-1. The said evidence is not placed on record by OP-1 so the version to reject the claim on this score does not inspire confidence.
- The Police did not immediately lodge the FIR on the alleged ground that he may find the car in a day or so. The complainant did not find the car even after three days upon which FIR was lodged. The complainant has allegedlywent to the Police Station to lodge the compliant on the same day but Police have allegedly delayed the lodging of FIR. The FIR was lodged after a gap of five days.The delayed lodging of FIR is a violation of the condition of the policy.
- The complainant has intimated OP-2 about the theft of the car and copy of FIR was sent to OP-2 vide email as apparent from Ex.CW3/3 (Ex.CE3). OP-2 did not forward the same to OP-1. OP-2 is a dealer of Maruti Suzuki Cars who was under no obligation to pursue the matter for the complainant.The intimation to OP-1 was given after two months by the complainant. There was delayed intimation to the OP-1 which is a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.
- To our mind, even if an insured breaches the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, the claim may still be settled under non-standard terms.
- There was delayed intimation to the OP-1 but this does not justify to deny the claim when FIR was lodged within reasonable time. The Police have filed untraced report. The OP-1 has not disputed the theft of car while rejecting the claim. The OP-1 cannot evade the obligation to settle the claim under non-standard terms i.e. the claim be settled up to 75% of the insured declared value of the car. The rejection of the claim is deficiency of service on the part of OP-1.
- In view of our discussion, the complaint is allowed to the effect that OP-2 was under no obligation to either inform OP-1 about the theft of vehicle or to pursue the claim for the complainant. The OP-1 has wrongly rejected the claim as claim should have been settled under non-standard terms. The OP-1 shall allow the claim to the extent of 75% of the insured declared value of the car in the insurance policy Annexure-CW-1 (Ex.CE/1).The date of rejection of claim is 20.05.2013. The complainant is entitled for interest @7% from the date of rejection of the claim till the realization of the claim amount. The complainant has undergone mental harassment and agony and rejection of the claim led to the filing of this complaint so complainant is entitled for compensation on this score. The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- on the account of mental harassment and agony and Rs.15,000/- for litigation expenses.The OP-1 is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment, agony and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 13.05.2024.
