Delhi

North East

CC/168/2018

Sh. Prahlad Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

20 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

Complaint Case No. 168/18

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Prahlad Singh S/o Sh. Chandan Singh, R/o: C-2/616, Street No. 15, Harsh Vihar, Delhi		Complainant
		Versus
	1.                     2.               3.             4.	The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its, Authorized Representative/Manager, At; 9, Naveen Shahdara, Near Vikas Cine Mall, Raj Block, Delhi 110032 Also At: Divisional Office 25, Maruti Insurance Nodal Office, 88, Janpath, New Delhi 110001   T.R Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd., Through its, Authorized Representative/Manager, At; 33-34, Harichand Melaran Complex, Wazirabad Road, East Gokalpur, Near Yamuna Vihar Flyover, Delhi 110094   Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Through its, Authorized Representative/Manager At; 01, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070   Cholamandalam Inv & Fin Co. Ltd., Through its, Authorized Representative/Manager, AT; 1st & 2nd Floor, Plot No. 6, Main Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 Also At: Second Floor, A 8, Block A, Panchwati, Azadpur, Delhi 110033		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		14.08.2018 07.06.2023 20.09.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 19.07.2016 Complainant had purchased a Maruti car Eeco, CNG fitted from the Opposite Party No. 2 for a total sum of Rs. 4,53,181/- and the same was registered with Burari RTO vide registration no. Dl-1R-TB-1648. The said car was financed by the Opposite Party No. 4. At the time of financing the said car, Opposite Party No. 4 also charged approx Rs. 21,000/- from the Complainant regarding the fire loss and theft loss. On 29.06.2017, the said vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party No. 1 and the insurance was valid up to 18.07.2018. On 25.05.2018, Complainant was going to his village Shahpur Milawali U.P and when the Complainant reached at Karan Gate Police Chowki and Hindon Air Force Station, Ghaziabad U.P then the Complainant noticed some smoke was coming out from the AC blower and suddenly car caught fire and started burning.  After that someone called Fire Extinguishing Department and when Fire Extinguishing Department reached till then the car was totally burnt and in this incident Complainant got several injuries on some parts of the body.  After that the Complainant got admitted in Narender Mohan Hospital but due some financial problem Complainant got discharged on same day and paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Thereafter, Complainant got admitted in GTB Hospital and doctors declared burning 18 to 20 % TBSA and got discharged on 04.06.2018. It is his case that brother of the Complainant informed the said incident to the Opposite Party No. 1 and lodged a complaint at Police Station Sahibabad. Brother of the Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party    No. 1 for getting the claim. After that Opposite Party No. 1 appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. In this regard Sh. Pankaj Kumar visited the residence of the Complainant and received all relevant documents. After that the surveyor prepared report dated 06.06.2018 to assess the loss and they quoted loss of Rs. 7,70,540.50/-. After sometime Complainant came to know through Opposite Party No. 1 that the insurance company had sanctioned his compensation and cheque had also been prepared. But some person of Opposite Party No. 1 were demanding for money from the Complainant to provide the cheque. In this regard, on 11.07.23018, Complainant lodged a complaint with the Opposite Party No. 1. It is his case that the said vehicle was insured on 29.06.2017 and was valid up to 18.07.2018 and the said incident was occurred during the insurance period. It is his case that Opposite Parties had not disbursed any compensation till date. Complainant has prayed for      Rs. 10,00,000/- towards fire claim and cost of vehicle along with interest          @ 12 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of earning, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses.  
2. Opposite Party No. 2 failed to file the written statement within stipulated period i.e. 45 days. Therefore, the defence of the Opposite Party No. 2 was struck off vide order dated 07.01.2019.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

3. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on its part. It is admitted that on the relevant date the vehicle of the Complainant was having insurance policy given by it. It is stated that on 25.07.2018, the claim of the Complainant was considered by it and it was found that the vehicle was fitted with two CNG cylinders, out of which one was authorized and other was unauthorized CNG cylinder, as per the registration certificate of the vehicle the sitting capacity of the vehicle was five, however, the photographs show that the Complainant had made an internal modification in the vehicle and thus had enhanced the sitting capacity of the vehicle and it was also found that the permit of the vehicle was issued for NCT Delhi only but at the time of loss the vehicle was plying in Uttar Pradesh. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit and the same deserves dismissal.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

4. The Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of the parties as Opposite Party No. 3 is not a necessary party in the present case. It is stated that the warranty of the vehicle in question expired in October, 2017 whereas the incident took place in May, 2018. It is stated that the real dispute is between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. 1. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 4

5. The Opposite Party No. 4 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable against it. It is stated that there is no deficiency on its part. Opposite Party No. 4 has denied the averments made in the complaint and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

6. The Complainant has filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

8. To support its case of Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Rajiv Chopra, Sr. Divisional Manager of Opposite Party No. 1, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 3

9. To support its case Opposite Party No. 3 has filed affidavit of Shri Raju Singh, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 3 as mentioned in the written statement.
10. Opposite Party No. 4 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 19.04.2022.

Arguments & Conclusion

11. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 3. The case of the Complainant is that on the date of the incident his vehicle was having a valid insurance policy issued by the Opposite Party No. 1. It is his case that the Opposite Party No. 1 has rejected his claim as he did not meet the demand of its officials to pay something illegally to them. On the other hand, the case of Opposite Party No. 1 is that the claim of the Complainant was rejected on the following grounds:

1. That the Complainant had fitted one unauthorized CNG cylinder in his vehicle. It is the case of Opposite Party No. 1 is that the vehicle was having two CNG Cylinders and one of them was unauthorized cylinder.
2. The Complainant has enhanced the sitting capacity from five persons by making modifications inside the vehicle.
3. The Complainant was having permit of NCT Delhi whereas the incident took place in Uttar Pradesh.

12. The Opposite Party No. 1 has filed report of the surveyor which shows that at the time of inspection of the vehicle two CNG cylinders were found in the vehicle whereas the Complainant was allowed only one CNG cylinder which had been affixed by the company. The other cylinder was found unauthorizedly fitted by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No. 1 has also supported this fact by filing affidavit of the Shri Rajiv Chopra. On the other hand, the Complainant did not file any evidence to show that his vehicle was having only one CNG cylinder. The perusal of the vehicle particulars issued by the Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi shows that there is mention of only one cylinder bearing no. 056433. Therefore, it is prove that the Complainant has got his vehicle fitted with unauthorized CNG cylinder which is violation of the insurance policy.
13. Further, the vehicle particulars issued by the Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi, shows that the permit area was valid within NCT of Delhi. The place of incident i.e. Ghaziabad does not come under NCT of Delhi. This also shows the violation of the insurance policy.
14. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, his claim had been rightly rejected by the Opposite Party No. 1. Hence, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.  
15. Order announced on 20.09.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President