Delhi

North East

CC/281/2012

Brijesh Khandelia - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

23 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.281/12

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Brijesh Khandelia Director of Jagdamba Road Lines Pvt Ltd. G-56, Bhairon Mandir Compound Bulward Road, Delhi-110054
		Complainant
	Versus
	M/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office 9, Raj Block Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-110032
		Opposite Party

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	03-08-2012
	DATE OF DECISION      :	23-04-2016

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member: -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6698606.  

1. Facts, in brief, relevant for the disposal of this complaint are that the complainant, the Director of Jagdamba Road Lines Pvt Ltd, had insured the vehicle bearing No. RJ 14G3 – 2820 vide Insurance Policy No. 271702/48/2011/1708 for the period 2011-12 and complainant had paid the premium regularly. On 21.11.2011 loaded vehicle was stolen in Delhi and the complainant lodged FIR in this regard and also informed Insurance Company for the same. Surveyor was appointed and he submitted his report accordingly. Original documents such as FIR, untraced report, discharged vouchers, one cancelled cheque, NOC with letter dated 23.03.2012 were submitted to the OP as asked by the OP vide letter dated 21.03.2012. On receipt of the documents the OP assured that the claim of the complainant is fit but till date has not passed the claim of Rs. 1,84,173/- despite the email sent to OP on 04.06.2012. The complainant prayed that the OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,84,173/- as insured amount alongwith interest @18% interest p.a. to the complainant and Rs, 1,00,000/- towards gross negligence, serious deficiency in service, untold mental torture and agony suffered by the complainant.
2. Notice was issued to the OP and OP entered appearance and filed its reply. OP took preliminary objection that the complainant is a private limited company and deals in commercial activities, and complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is stated that present complaint is pre-mature and without lodging the claim with the OP and that the complainant has not intimated the OP happening of incident well within time and there is violation of terms and conditions of policy. On merit the OP admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it and denied all the allegations contained in the complaint.
3. In replication, the complainant denied the objections raised by way of preliminary objection and reiterated the facts stated in the complaint.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by both the parties. Complainant has filed the email sent to OP on 04.06.2012 requesting OP to settle the claim as Ex CW1/1, letter dated 23.05.2012 sending the documents in original to OP as Ex CW1/2, letter dated 21.05.2012 asking complainant to send the documents in original as Ex CW1/3, copy of the motor insurance certificate-cum-policy schedule Ex CW1/4, copy of order of untraced report by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Ex CW1/5, untraced report Ex CW1/6 and copy of FIR Ex CW1/7. OP has filed copy of the insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions as Ex R1.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record.
6. OP in its reply has admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it for the period 26.11.2010 to 25.11.2011 but has taken the preliminary objection that the complainant is a private limited company and deals in commercial activities, hence is not a consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. It has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Harsolia Motors Vs National Insurance Company Ltd 1(2005) CPJ 27 (NC) that hiring of insurance company by complainant who are carrying on commercial activities can’t be held to be a commercial purpose. Policy is taken for reimbursement or indemnity for loss which may be suffered due to various perils. A person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose. Policy is for indemnification and actual loss and not intended to generate profit. Hence, the preliminary objection taken by the OP that complainant is not consumer is not sustainable in view of the judgement cited above.
7. The OP has taken the plea that the complaint is pre-mature and without lodging the complaint with the OP, the complainant has rushed to this Forum. Complainant has stated in the complaint as well as in the evidence by way of affidavit that he lodged the FIR with regard to the theft and also informed insurance company and the insurance company appointed a surveyor who submitted his report and insurance company wrote a letter dated 21.03.2012 (Ex CW1/3) asking the complainant to submit certain documents mentioned in that letter and the complainant submitted the required documents on 23.03.2012 (Ex CW1/2). The OP itself has admitted the fact of sending letter to the complainant in its reply and affidavit by way of evidence. As the complainant didn’t receive any response from the OP, the complainant send email dated 04.06.2012 to the OP to which the OP didn’t respond as such the complainant had no other option but to knock the door of the Forum. Hence, the plea taken by the OP that the complaint is premature and the complainant has rushed to this Forum without complaining to the OP doesn’t stand. The complainant has submitted all the documents in original vide his letter dt 23.03.2012 Ex CW1/2 as required by the OP vide its letter dated 21.03.2012 (Ex CW1/3) and as stated by the complainant that surveyor has also been appointed by the OP who inspected the site and submitted his report, in our view nothing else remained to be done on the part of the complainant.
8. In this case from the facts stated in complaint the theft has taken place on 21.11.2011 and the complainant lodged the FIR on 24.11.2011 and reported the matter to the insurance company on the same day, surveyor was also appointed and documents required for passing the claim were also submitted by complainant on 23.3.2012 and complainant sent a email on 4.6.2012 but when not received any response from the OP complainant filed the present complaint on 03.08.2012. Inordinate and unjustified delay in passing or repudiating the claim is itself a deficiency in service as held by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in M/s Delkton India Pvt Ltd Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
9. In view  of the above discussion we hold that OP is liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,84,173/- as insured amount alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint till its realization. The complainant is also awarded Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost.
10. All these amounts shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
12. File be consigned to record room.
13. Announced on 23.04.2016

 

 

(N.K.Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member

(Manju Bala Sharma) Member