Delhi

East Delhi

CC/849/2013

RAJESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA ASS. - Opp.Party(s)

01 May 2017

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. 849/13

Shri RAJESH KUMAR ,

S/O Shri JAGAN NATH,

N-32, ARUNA NAGAR,

MANJU KA TILA

1448859.  

                                                                                                                         ….Complainant

•  

 

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. Ltd.,

DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE-ii,

CORE IV 1^ST FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR COMPLEX,

LAXMIM NAGAR, DISTRICT CENTRE,

1.  

                                                                                                                               ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 26.09.2013

Judgment Reserved for: 01.05.2017

Judgment Passed on: 02.05.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. Jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked by Shri Rajesh Kumar, the complainant, against United India Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., (OP) alleging deficiency in service.
2. Facts in brief are that the complainant is a owner of vehicle bearing Regn. No. DL IVA 6561 Tata Mini Bus, which was insured vide policy no. 221800311P000140699 from OP. The insurance was valid from 18/04/2012 to 17/04/2013. The vehicle was financed by The Awadh Sahu Co-Op. Society Ltd. On 16/04/2013, the complainant was plying the said vehicle when it caught fire due to short circuit. The complainant called 100 number and fire brigade but the vehicle had burnt into ashes. It is stated that all the documents pertaining to the vehicle were lying in the said vehicle which got burnt. The statement was recorded at Police Station Alipur, Delhi. The OP was also informed alongwith copy of Police record. It is further stated that the claim of the complainant was rejected vide letter dated 03/09/2013 on the ground that the vehicle was being used in contravention of the terms and conditions. The vehicle was being plied for hire even though it did not have valid permit. Despite several request the claim of the complainant was not settled. It is further stated that even though the permit had expired on 13/04/2013, the renewal process was in progress after getting the vehicle clear the fitness test.  Hence, the present complaint seeking relief of Rs.4,00,000/- as claim, Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & harassment.
3. The complainant has annexed Driving License, Pan Card, RC, Form 52 i.e. Insurance Cover Note, Policy Documents, Fitness Certificate, Form 47 “Tourist Permit or National Permit”, Permit Details, Report of Delhi Fire Service, Statement of the Complainant, Rejection Letter by OP Dated 03/09/2013, Letter by OP dated 02/07/2013 seeking documents, with the complaint.
4. OP filed their reply after service of the summon, where they took the plea that the OP had appointed the surveyor and loss assessors to investigate the matter and as per the surveyor report the permit of the said insured vehicle has already expired on 03/04/2013. Thus, on the date of loss, the vehicle was being driven in violation of Section 66 (3) of Motor Vehicle Act. Thus, the claim of the complainant had been rightly repudiated as there was breach of policy Terms & Conditions. Rests of the contents of the complaint were denied.
5. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant where the contents of the complaint were repeated and those of the written statement were denied.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties wherein the complainant examined himself and stated the contents of the complaint on oath. He relied on exhibits marked as ID proof Ex. CW1/1, copy of the policy as Ex. CW1/2, premium receipt as Ex. CW1/3, copy of the statement at Police Station Alipur as Ex. CW1/4, intimation to OP Ex. CW1/5, rejection letter as Ex. CW1/6, copy of the representation/reply as Ex. CW1/7.
7. Shri Rajesh Bajaj was examined on behalf of OP who reiterated the contents of written statement.
8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The said vehicle was insured with OP is not disputed. Dispute is with respect to the fact that the vehicle was not having valid permit on the date of incident. If we take a look at Ex. CW1/4 which is statement at Police Station Alipur, where the complainant has stated that the incident happened at Delhi. Form 47, is a national permit annexed with the complaint which reveals that the said vehicle bearing All India Tourist Permit having permit no. AITP/0236/2008 was valid up to 13/04/2013 and the original permit no. CC/ACC/HQ/00302/2008 was valid up to 02/05/2013, as the said vehicle had valid permit which was issued by State Transport Delhi, the incident also happened in Delhi, it cannot be held that the said insured vehicle is not having a valid permit as on the date of incident. Therefore, the claim of the complainant should have been settled by the OP. Hence, the present complaint is allowed. The OP is directed to settle the claim of the complainant by paying Rs.3,40,000/- (IDV less 15% depreciation) as the said vehicle has already been used for a year from the date of insurance. We also award compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and harassment. In case the OP fails to settle the claim within 30 days from the date of order, the complainant shall be entitled to get interest @ 9% on Rs.3,65,000/- (Rs.3,40,000 + Rs.25,000/-) from the date of the order till realization.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

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

      MEMBER                                                                                          MEMBER

 

                                                 (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                     PRESIDENT