DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 1324/2007
Sh. Anil Mehrotra
S/O Sh. C.P. Mehrotra
R/o M-3, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019. ….Complainant
Versus
- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Chairman/Managing Director
87, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Fort, Mumbai-400001.
- The Regional Manager(RO-I)
The new India Assurance Co.Ltd.
R-7A, Main Green Park,
New Delhi
- The Divisional Manager
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
R-7A, Main Green Park,
New Delhi ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 26.12.2007 Date of Order : 30.03.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant who was the registered owner of car bearing Regn. No. DL-2CV-0050 make 2001 covered for the period 13.11.2005 till 12.11.2006 midnight vide Insurance Policy No. 05/01/00002245 taken from OP No.2 having IDV of Rs. 3,22,200/- is that the said car was stolen from outside Kalka Public School, Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019 on 11.11.2006 between 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. and he reported the matter to the police vide DD No. 18-A dated 11.11.2006 registered as Police Station CR Park, but the police registered an FIR No. 540 /2006 u/s 379 IPC on 26.12.2006 only. According to him, he informed the OP No. 2 about the theft on the same date and the OP deputed Sh. Vikram Arora of M/s Vikram Arora & Co. as a surveyor who visited the Complainant on 17.03.2007 and 26.03.2007, filled the claim form but, however, the OP failed to settle the claim of the Complainant . The police filed untraced report u/s173 Cr. P.C on 05.02.2007. It is stated that Sh. D.S.Dabas, Manager RO-I of OPs sent a letter No.DRO-I/MTD/DSD/UM/2007 dated 21.09.2007 intimating the Complainant that the grievances of the Complainant have been conveyed to the Divisional Office and they have informed RO-I vide their reply dated 20.09.2007 but, however, no such reply dated 20.09.2007 was sent by the Divisional Office and the reply which was sent by the Divisional Office was undated. In the said letter the Complainant had been conveyed that the Divisional office had treated his claim as no claim which according to the Complainant is not correct. He sent a legal notice dated 19.11.2007 to the OPs through the registered post but to of no effect. Hence pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the Complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to pay Rs. 3,22,200/ towards the insured sum of the said car, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the loss, sufferings, mental torture and harassment caused to him and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation.
In the reply the OPs have inter-alia stated that the claim of the Complainant had been duly considered and thereafter repudiated as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is submitted that the complainant failed to substantiate his claim that the loss occurred within the subsistence of the policy period; that the letter written by the complainant was contradictory to the statement given by his driver to the investigator of the OPs; that there was no authentic means to confirm the exact date of the theft i.e. whether it occurred during or subsequent to the expiry of the policy period . It is further submitted even otherwise the FIR does not detail the alleged theft of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-2CV-0050. Hence it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The complainant has filed a rejoinder.
The Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, the affidavit of Sh. Surender Bhatoa, Divisional Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed. We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the record.
The policy in question was admittedly in respect of Vehicle No. DL-2CV-0050. The copy of DD No. 18-A dated 11.11.2006 lodged at PS CR Park is exhibit CW1/B wherein the number of car has been initially written as DL-2CB-0050. Thereafter the alphabet ‘B’ has been cut and the alphabet ‘V’ has been written over it. Copy of the FIR is exhibit CW1/C. Copy of the FIR has also been filed on behalf of the OPs which we mark as mark ‘A’ for the purpose of identification. FIR No. 540 dated 26.12.2006 was got registered P.S. CR Park after about 50 days. Even in the FIR initially the car number has been written as DL-2-CB-0050. Thereafter the alphabet ‘B’ has been cut and the alphabet ‘V’ has been written over it. One of the grounds taken by the OPs while repudiating the claim in question is that there was serious discrepancy regarding identity of the vehicle alleged to be stolen in the documents submitted (Copy Exhibit CW 1/H). We also find that there always occurred discrepancy with regard to the registration number of the vehicle stated to have been stolen w.e.f. recording of DDNo.18-A dated 11.11.2006 till the FIR dated 26.12.2006 and even in closure report filed u/s 173 Cr. PC on 05.02.2007 though in the closure report it has been written perhaps by the ACP that vehicle may be read as DL-2CV-0050. On what basis did the said police officer make this endorsement is not made known to us.
Secondly, the copy of the statement made by the driver has been filed on the record. The same alongwith other documents was sent by the complainant to the Surveyor vide letter dated 10.04.2007. We mark copy of the letter as mark ‘B’ for the purpose of identification. In the said statement which we mark as mark ‘C’ for the purpose of identification, the driver Sh. Syed Sarfaraz Alam stated that he was working as a driver on vehicle No. DL- 2CV-0050 and he had parked the same outside the Kalka Public School, Alaknanda, New Delhi on 11.11.2006 at about 10.00 A.M. and when he came out of the school at 11.00 A.M. he found that the vehicle was not there and in fact had been stolen by somebody and that a police report was lodged at P.S. CR Park. Thus, the driver of the vehicle had acquired knowledge of the alleged theft of the vehicle at 11.00 A.M. However, DD No. 18-A had been got recorded at 5.05 P.M. This is an unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police. In the DD No. 18-A the colour of the vehicle has been mentioned as light yellow while in the FIR the colour of the vehicle has been mentioned as cream golden. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above this is also a serious discrepancy with regard to the description of the vehicle stated to have been stolen on 11.11.2006. The FIR had been lodged on 26.12.2006.
The complainant has tried to explain the delay by making some averments in the complaint to the effect that the police did not lodge the FIR till 26.12.2006. However, in the FIR it is stated that he was out of Delhi. This is also a material discrepancy.
In our considered opinion, the OP did not commit any deficiency in service while repudiating the claim of the complainant. We hold accordingly.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 30.03.17.
