DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.02/23
Kamlender Singh
S/o Virender Singh
201, 2nd Floor, Savitri Nagar
New Delhi-110017. .…Complainant
VERSUS
M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
No.208, A/3, Savitri Nagar
New Delhi-110017.
Also At:
SVC RO-1, 10th Floor
Hansalya Building
15, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi-110001. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Manoj Kumar for complainant.
Present: OP is exparte.
ORDER
Date of Institution:03.01.2023
Date of Order :26.06.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking insured amount of Rs.4,40,000/- along with interest @18%; a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for inconvenience etc. and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
- It is stated by the complainant that he took a Motor Insurance Policy for IDV of Rs.4,40,000/- for a premium paid of Rs.20,809/- and policy was valid from 16.05.2018 to 15.05.2019 copy of the policy schedule is annexed as annexure A-2.
- It is stated that on 10.04.2019 the driver parked the vehicle and on 11.04.2019 it was found that the vehicle has been stolen from the spot. It is further stated that a call was made at 100 number immediately and an e-FIR dated 15.04.2019 bearing No.013171/ 2019 was registered. It is annexed as annexure A-3. The OP was also intimated and claim in this regard was filed. It is further stated complainant submitted all documents that was desired by OP to process the claim including copy of the FIR, Untrace report, final report accepted by the court and duly acknowledged by RTO about the non-transfer of the vehicle.
- It is further stated that vide letter dated 05.07.2021 OP rejected the claim of the complainant on fictitious ground that the subject vehicle was being driven in violation of IMT-35 i.e. on ‘hired vehicle – driven by hirer’. Copy of the letter dated 05.07.2021 is annexed as annexure A-4.
- Complainant thereafter made several visits and telephonically contacted the officials of the OP to apprise them about the correct facts however, the OP did not pay attention to the request of the complainant. It is further stated that complainant sent letter dated 13.09.2021 to OP in which he categorically stated that the vehicle was not given to any person on hire and the person driving it was a paid driver i.e. Babulal and Sudhir was caretaker of the vehicle. Copy of the letter dated 13.09.2021 is annexed as annexure A-5.
- Complainant also made complaint to Insurance Ombudsman but the Ombudsman also rejected the claim of the complainant vide its order dated 07.03.2022. It is further stated in the proceedings before the Ld. Ombudsman OP had taken the plea that the complainant was in violation of terms IMT-44 instead of IMT-35 which was stated earlier. Copy of the order dated 07.03.2022 is annexure A-6.
- It is further stated by the complainant that the act of the OP in repudiating the claim of the complainant on incorrect, false, flimsy grounds and amounts to defective and deficient services and also unfair trade practice for which they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant in addition to the claim amount.
- OP was proceeded exparte as despite service none appeared on their behalf. Complainant has filed his evidence as well as written arguments, evidence has been filed by the driver of the vehicle as well as the complainant and also Mr. Sudhir helper. The complainant has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in K.P. Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. I 92005) CPJ 207 NC.
- This Commission has gone through the evidence filed by the complainant as well as his written submissions. The FIR placed on record is dated 15.04.2019 which is four days after the vehicle was stolen on 11.04.2019. No reason has been given for the delay in filing the FIR. The averment that a call was immediately made to the Police at 100 number, no record of the call being has been made filed by the complainant. Though the OP has repudiated the claim of the complainant as per the terms of IMT-35 and IMT-44 since IMT-44 is applicable for vehicle carrying goods. As per the order of Ombudsman dated 07.03.2022 the Ombudsman had perused the investigation report filed before him which concluded that the insured vehicle was on hire and was with the hirer at the time when it got stolen on 11.04.2019.
This Commission directed the complainant to place the investigation report on record however, they showed their inability to do so. Given the fact that the investigation report is against the complainant as has been held by Ombudsman as also the fact the FIR was lodged four days from the date of theft. As per the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane FA No.321/2005, theft has to be reported without any delay.
In SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 it was held “the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the respondent in the complaint.”
It is therefore upon the complainant to initially discharge its onus that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In the present case the complainant has not been able to discharge this onus. This Commission does not find anything wrong with the order of repudiation of the OP and therefore the complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.
