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/259/16
Date of Institution:- 06.06.2016
Order Reserved on:- 22.07.2024
Date of Decision:- 28.10.2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Rajender Kumar @ Rajender Kumar Bhagwana
S/o Sh. SarjeetSingh Bhagwana
R/o B-118, Chawala Village, Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110071.….. Complainant
VERSUS
- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
C-30, Community Centre, Narayana,
New Delhi – 110028
Through its Dy. General Manager
- The SO/Incharge,
PS-Govardhan
District- Mathura (UP)…..Opposite Parties
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 thathe has purchased Maruti Swift DzireDiesel car bearing registration no.DL1YD6507 from M/s Rana Motors Pvt. Ltd. after taking loan from SBI, BhikajiCama Place, New Delhi. He has taken the insurance policy bearing no.31260031130101225079 from OP valid from 29.12.2013-28.12.2014. On 10.11.2014, some unknown persons (Aditya and Phone No.9650046391) hired his car for Govardhan, Uttar Pradesh. The unknown personsgave him beatings and fled with the car. On 11.11.2014, the complaint was given to OP-2. The case under section 379 IPC was registered vide FIR No.347/2014 PS, Govardhan, U.P. He lodged the claim with OP-1 which was rejected vide letter dated 16.06.2015 and reiterated vide letter dated 01.09.2015. The mediation Centre has rejected his application on the ground that trible issue is involved. A notice dated 15.02.2016 was sent to OP-1. SBI has filed a Civil Suit no.72/16 for the recovery which is pending disposal in the court of Sh. Sanjay Khanagwal, Ld. ADJ, Dwarka Court, Delhi. OP-2 did not properly investigate the case. There is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.Hence, this complaint.
- OP-1has filed the reply to the effect that vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle so complainant is not a consumer. The complaint has raised trible issue. The complainant has violated condition no.5 of the terms and conditions of the policy that insured should take reasonable care and precaution to protect the property. Three passengers were sitting in the vehicle and complainant had left the car unattended to ease out himself. The keys were in the car. The ignition of the car was on. The other key was kept in the bag of the insured which was in the car. The complainant has concocted the story in order to get the claim. The complainant inconivancewith the passengers has disposed off the car. The case is of theft or loot is to be decided after the evidence. No driving licensee to drive the commercial vehicle is placed on record. There is no deficiency on the part of OP-1.
- OP-2 did not appear despite service and proceeded ex-parte on 11.07.2016.
- The order sheet dated 17.01.2017 shows that complainant does not want to file rejoinder.
- The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
- The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Annexure-A to H.
- OP-1 has filed the affidavit of Ms.Kavita Jain, AO, in evidence wherein she has corroborated the version of written statement.
- We have perused the entire material on record.
- It is clear from the evidence on record that complainant was owner of the car which was duly insured with OP-1.
- The Annexure-C shows that complainant has given a letter dated 12.11.2014 to OP-1 that on 10.11.2014 he has left Delhi for Govardhan with the passenger. The car was stopped at Chatta Road, just before Govardhan, to ease out himself. The passengersin the car fled with the car. The FIR Annexure-B also contains the same facts.
- The letter to OP-1 and FIR nowhere shows that complainant was beaten by the unknown persons sitting in the car and thereafter fled with the car as alleged by him in the complaint. The complainant has failed to clarify this fact.
- The key was in the ignition when he stopped the car that is why the unknown persons were allegedly able to fled with the car. There is negligence on the part of the complainant by leaving the key in the ignition which itself gave an opportunity to the unknown persons to fled with the car which is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
- The complainant was using the car for commercial purposes. He has nowhere alleged in the complaint that he was using the car for self-employment in order to earn his livelihood. The car was used for commercial purposes so complainant does not come within the ambit of “Consumer”.
- The OP-1 has rightly rejected the claim vide letter dated 16.06.2015.
- The SBI has filed a recovery suit against the complainant in 2016. The present complaint has been filed on 16.05.2016. It appears that the present complaint has been filed in order to counter the case filed by the SBI especially when the claim was initially rejected by the
OP-1 on 16.06.2015 and thereafter reiterated its stand vide letter dated 01.09.2015.
- The above said discussion shows that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP-1 in rejecting the claim.
- Hence, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.
- 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 28.10.2024.
