DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.747/2010

Sh. Gian Chand Rana

S/o Late Sh. JR Rana,

21 C.S.C. Suvidha Market,

Sarojni Nagar, New Delhi-110023                                 ….Complainant

Versus

United India Insurance Company Ltd.

42 C, III Floor, Mool Chand Compound

Complex, New Delhi-110024                                    ……Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution          : 30.12.10                                                   Date of Order        :  28.10.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member           

O R D E R

We have heard the Complainant in person.

None has appeared to advance arguments on behalf of the OP.

We have also very carefully gone through the respective pleadings, evidence, documents and the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties.

The facts which are not in dispute are that the Complainant had got his car bearing No.DL3CW 7489 make TATA INDICA bearing chassis No.600136GUZP93600 engine No.475IDI03GUZP95488 insured from the OP vide policy No. 041200/31/07/01/00004015 which  was valid upto 07.08.08. However, the said vehicle was stolen from outside the office of the Complainant on the night of 14.03.08 and 15.03.08. The matter was reported to the police vide FIR No.150 dated 09.04.08 at PS Sarojni Nagar, New Delhi. The matter was also brought to the notice of the OP who appointed Sh. M.S. Panwar as Surveyor & Loss Assessor.  All the formalities were got completed by the Surveyor from the Complainant who submitted the report. However, the OP did not settle the matter on one ground or the other.  National Crime Records Bureau vide its Vehicle Enquiry Report dated 18.03.09 intimated that the vehicle No.DL3CW7489 bearing chassis No.600113GUZP93600 Engine No.279001153804JE4 had been recovered on which the OP vide letter dated 15.04.09 informed the Complainant that the vehicle had been recovered at P.S. Pandharkawda, Yavatmal, Maharashtra and asked to get the same released in his favour and informed them about loss or damage, if any, to the vehicle. The Complainant replied to the letter vide letter dated 27.04.09 stating therein that the NCRB report contained different engine No. and hence he was not ready to get the vehicle released.  On this, the OP appointed Sh. K. S. Tiwari of  their Maharashtra branch office as Investigator who submitted his report dated 16.09.09  but did not make any comment on the engine No. of the vehicle. On the OP’s instructions, Sh. K. S. Tiwari again went to the PS Pandharkawada  on 22.12.09 and physically noted the engine No. as 279001153804AE4 (according to the OP the  engine No. mentioned in the report of Sh. K. S. Tiwari is number of engine head and not engine No.). The OP again appointed Sh. Shakeel A. Malani to inspect the vehicle who vide his inspection report dated 19.04.2010 informed that he had verified the chassis No. and engine No. of the seized vehicle with the numbers mentioned in the copy of registration certificate provided to him and confirmed that the seized vehicle was the same as mentioned in the registration certificate of the insured vehicle. The Complainant refused to get the vehicle released on the ground that it infact contained a wrong engine No. Therefore, the OP repudiated the claim of the Complainant. 

Pleading deficiency in service the Complainant has filed the present complaint. The prayer of the Complainant is that the OP be directed to pay the insured amount as per IDV with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle till actual realization and also compensation for mental agony and harassment and also the cost.

OP has disputed the claim of the Complainant.

 OP’s witness has relied on number of documents marked as Exhibit Nos. Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/6 but Exhibit Nos. have not been marked on the corresponding documents.

The only question which remains to be decided is, whether the Complainant was justified in not getting the vehicle released on the ground that it infact contained a wrong engine No. and, if so,  the OP was deficient in service or not?

Annexure C-20 is the copy of the policy in question wherein the value of the car in question has been written as Rs.2,32,000/-. Admittedly, as per the NCRB report the vehicle recovered at Pandharkawda, Yavatmal Maharashtra had a different engine No. As per the first report of the Surveyor of the OP the engine No. of the said vehicle was wrong. In his report, the second Surveyor did not mention about the engine No.  He again inspected the vehicle and very surprisingly enough he submitted second report in which the engine  No. was mentioned as 279001153804AE4. This is certainly a different engine No. from the engine No. mentioned in the RC of the vehicle in question but, however, very interestingly the OP has tried to cover this lacuna by taking a plea that the said engine No. mentioned in the second report of Sh. K. S. Tiwari was number of engine head and not the engine No.  On what basis the OP had/has taken this plea is not made known to us. Therefore, it is the imagination of the minds of the officials of the OP themselves which cannot be converted into reality and cannot be accepted as a gospel truth in the absence of any cogent oral/documentary evidence adduced in this behalf on behalf of the OP.

In his report dated 19.04.10, Sh. Shakeel A. Malani malafidely mentioned that the chassis No. and the engine No. of the recovered vehicle were the same as written in the registration certificate provided to him. How could he verify this fact has remained a matter of great mystery which has not been solved by the OP by giving any convincible reason. When on two earlier occasions the two investigators had found different engine Nos. on the seized vehicle, then how could Sh. Shakeel A. Malani find the same engine No. on the recovered vehicle as mentioned in the registration certificate of the vehicle in question.  Therefore, the case of the OP is full of serious doubts and suspicions and there is every reason to believe that the officials of the OP had acted in a very highhandedness and malafide manner for some exterior reasons best known to them. In our considered opinion, the Complainant was completely justified in not getting the seized vehicle released from the concerned court in Maharashtra dealing with the cases of P.S. Pandharkawda. Therefore, we hold that while repudiating the claim of the Complainant the OP through its officials had acted in a very highhandedness and malafide manner and thus committed a serious deficiency in service.

In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.2,32,000/- (IDV of the vehicle) to the Complainant alongwith interest @ Rs.6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 30.12.2010 till its realization and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and legal expenses within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay the said amount of Rs.2,32,000/- along with interest @ Rs.9% per annum from 30.12.2010 till its realization.

           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 28.10.16.