Delhi

East Delhi

CC/565/2015

TULSI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIC - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 565/15

 

Shri Tulsi Singh

Proprietor of M/s. S.P. Travels

S/o Shri Shyam Singh

R/o H. No. 159, Village & P.O. Hiranki

Delhi – 110 036                                                                              ….Complainant

Vs.

M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited

Service Hub, Regional Office – II

Core – IV, Ist Floor, Scope Minar

Laxmi Nagar, District Centre

New Delhi – 110 092                                                                        ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 31.07.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 09.01.2018

Judgment Passed on: 17.01.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            The present complaint has been filed by M/s. S.P. Travels though its proprietor Shri Tulsi Singh against M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(OP). 

2.         Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that M/s. S.P. Travel is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing no. UP16AT2157 TATA Indica DLG Motor Cab/Taxi, which was insured with OP for a period from 17.05.2013 to 16.05.2014 vide policy no. 2215003113P101265777 with IDV of Rs.3,20,000/-.    On 26.10.2013, Shri Shiv Kumar, the driver of the complainant parked the insured vehicle near his rented accommodation i.e. F-742 (30 futa road) Garima Garden around 10 p.m., but did not find the same on next day i.e. 27.10.2013.  Thereafter, the driver informed the complainant and PCR was also informed around 8.15 a.m. on 27.10.2013, but despite efforts, the vehicle could not be traced and thereafter FIR no. 1115/2013 under Section 379 IPC and Section 177 Motor Vehicle Act was registered with P.S. Sahibabad.  On written complaint dated 25.11.2013, the same was accepted by the Ld. CJM Ghaziabad vide order dated 30.01.2014.

            It was stated that the complainant visited the office of OP on 28.10.2013 where they enquired about the copy of FIR.  As the original documents (RC, Insurance Policy and Fitness Certificate) were kept in the stolen vehicle, the complainant requested for issuing duplicate copy of the policy, but it was turned down on the pretext of non-functioning of the system.  After obtaining FIR, when he visited again to the office of OP, they asked for the duplicate copy of FIR.  After completing all the formalities, he lodged the claim with OP on 18.11.2013. 

            It was further stated that he received the repudiation letter dated 27.03.2014 vide claim file no. 7040 vehicle no. UP 16 AT 2157.  Hence, he has prayed for directions to OP to pay Rs. 3,20,000/- against the claim of stolen vehicle alongwith 18% interest from the date of theft till the actual payment; Rs. 50,000 on account of damages and Rs. 22,000/- as cost of litigation.

            The complainant has annexed retail invoice, receipt of dated 21.04.2011 (Annex. P-1)(colly.), insurance cover note (Annex. P-2), police report vide S.No. 3295 dated 27.10.2013 (Annex. P-3), complaint dated 05.11.2013 (Annex. P-4), copy of FIR (Annex. P-5), letters sent by the complainant (Annex. P-6) and copy of letter dated 27.03.2014 (Annex. P-7) with the complaint. 

3.         OP filed their reply upon service of notice, wherein they took several pleas in their defence such as; the vehicle in question was registered in favour of S.P. Travels and the claim was repudiated due to delay in lodging FIR as well as delay in intimation to the insurance company.  Other facts have also been denied.

            OP have annexed copy of RC (Annex. A), vehicle delivery note issued by Pawha International Pvt. Ltd. (Annex. A-1), closer report dated 10.12.2013 (Annex. B), terms and conditions of policy (Annex. C), complaint lodged by driver Shiv Kumar (Annex. D), letter dated 20.02.2014 (Annex. E), Untraced report dated 09.01.2014 and final order of CJM of 30.01.2014 (Annex. F) and repudiation letter dated 27.03.2014 (Annex. G) with the written statement.

4.         In his rejoinder to the WS filed by OP, the complainant has denied the contents of the WS and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as photocopy of retail invoice and receipt dated 21.04.2011 (Ex. CW1/1 colly.), copy of insurance cover note (Ex. CW1/2), police report in respect of telephone call made by Shiv Kumar (Ex. CW1/3), written complaint dated 05.11.2013 (Ex. CW1/4), copy of FIR and final report (Ex. CW1/5), copies of letter sent by OP (Ex. CW1/6) and copy of letter dated 27.03.2014 (Ex. CW1/7).

            OP examined Ms. Lata Kumar, AO, who has reproduced their submissions in their WS and has got exhibited copy of terms and conditions of said policy (Ex.OP/A), copy of report of the financer dated 10.12.2013 (Ex.OP/B), copy of written complaint to P.S. Sahibabad on 05.11.2013 (Ex.OP/C), letter dated 20.02.2014 (Ex.OP/D),closer report dated 09.01.2014 (Ex.OP/D-1) and letter dated 27.03.2014 (Ex.OP/E).    

6.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record as none has appeared on behalf of the complainant to argue.  Firstly, deciding on the locus of the complainant to file the present complaint, it has been stated by OP that insured vehicle was in the name of S.P. Travels.  Thus, Shri Tulsi Singh could not file the present complaint.  It is stated in the complaint that Shri Tulsi Singh, the complainant is the proprietor of S.P. Travel, thus, he is competent to file the present complaint.  Now, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground of breach of policy condition no. 1 of terms and conditions, where there has been a delay of 21 days in intimation to the OP and 8 days delay in registration of FIR.  The complainant has placed on record Ex.CW1/3, the police report, in respect of call made to PCR by Shri Shiv Kumar, the driver of the complainant, where the information was given to the PCR at 8.15 a.m. on the day of incident.  The complainant has replied to the letter dated 20.02.2014 issued by OP and has explained the reason of delay vide letter dated 28.02.2014.  Thus, the delay has been explained by the complainant, if we take a look into Ex.CW1/3, the police was promptly informed regarding the theft of vehicle.  Further, the complainant has also explained the delay in registration of FIR, thus, once the complainant has set criminal law into motion, by immediately informing the PCR, he cannot be said to be negligent.  It is settled principle of law that claim should not be repudiated in a mechanical manner on technical grounds.  Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct OP to pay Rs. 2,40,000/- (being 75% of the IDV of       Rs. 3,20,000/-).  We also award Rs. 25,000/- as compensation which includes the cost of litigation. 

          This order be complied within a period of 30 days.  If not complied, the total amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order. 

            Copy of the order be supplied to both the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

           

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President