Delhi

North East

CC/510/2015

Sh. Vinod Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Ins. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2019

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. 510/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Santram R/o H.No. A-1/3, Gali No. 3 Bhajanpura, Delhi	Complainant
	Versus
	United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 17, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Delhi Medical Association Bldg. Darya Ganj New Delhi 110002	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION :

29.12.2015 29.11.2019 29.11.2019

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Facts of the complaint narrated by the complainant therein are that the complainant had purchased a TATA Safari vehicle bearing registration No. DL-4CU-7278 from Chaudhary Motors Ghaziabad U.P. and got the same transferred in his name. Thereafter the complainant got the vehicle insured with OP vide old policy No. 04178231130100003246 and new policy no. 00417823113P113709770 w.e.f. 18.05.2013 to 17.05.2014 for IDV of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The subject vehicle got stolen on 20.01.2014 near Bhajanpura, Delhi and complainant lodged FIR No. 89/2014 with PS Bhajanpura U/s 379 IPC. Complainant also informed OP immediately of the theft which then appointed the investigator who came for enquiry to complainant’s residence on 22.01.2014 and asked him for certain documents. The complainant accordingly handed over all the requisite documents alongwith NCRB report to the investigator on 30.06.2014. The said officer assured the complainant of approval of his claim within next 30 days but no response came forth thereafter from OP. Complainant filed an RTI application on 12.10.2015 to know for progress on his claim to which the OP vide response dated 09.11.2015 submitted that for want of information from the Claims Department, the claim approval is delayed. The complainant thereafter approached the regional office of OP vide complaint dated 30.11.2015 requesting for early redressal of his grievance but no redressal / approval of his claim came forth. Therefore, as a last resort complainant was compelled to file the present complaint before this Forum after being mentally harassed for issuance of directions against the OP to process his theft claim and pay IDV of Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached copy of FIR dated 20.01.2014, copy of application dated 21.01.2014 by PS Bhajanpura, Delhi, application to NCRB submitting the stolen vehicle particular with request to maintain a look out, copy of untraced report dated 25.06.2014 filed by PS Bhajanpura, Delhi, copy of final report dated 11.07.2014 U/s 173 Cr.P.C. filed by the concerned PS in the MM Court, copy of vehicle enquiry report dated 24.07.2014 issued by NCRB as “vehicle not recovered yet”.

2. Notice was issued to the OP on 14.01.2016. OP entered appearance and filed its written statement on 29.03.2016 vide which it took the preliminary objection of complainant not being the owner of the allegedly stolen vehicle and resisted the complaint on grounds that on receipt of intimation of theft of the subject vehicle, OP had appointment investigator for verification of vehicle details and discovered that a vehicle bearing registration no. UP-23-E-0871 having engine no. F10DN3307184 chassis no. MA3EMD81S00178936 Maruti Suzuki Car 2008 of registration date 29.05.2008 financed by SBI Amroha, UP stood insured in the name of one Mr. Kanti Prasad Tyagi vide policy no. 041782/31/13/01/00003241 w.e.f. 17.05.2013 to 16.05.2014 for IDV of Rs. 1,14,000/-. Therefore, to clarify the same the OP had called the complainant to its office on 07.01.2016 and handed over a letter dated 06.01.2016 to clarify the three queries raised therein;

1. Why vehicle bearing No. UP-23-E-0871 was issued in his name against the policy nearing no. xxxx ending 46 for the period 18.05.2013 to 17.05.2014
2. Clarify as to why later on 08.10.2013 the aforementioned vehicle RC Number was changed to DL4CU 7278
3. Provide copy of RC for verification.

3    But the complainant instead of submitting reply to the queries, filed the present complaint. OP urged that the complainant has suppressed material facts pertaining to status of policy, RC and policy before this Forum and took the objection of non-intimation of theft by the complainant to OP due to which reason the OP could not appoint surveyor and therefore no opinion of repudiation / rejection of claim could be put forth.  OP further resisted the complaint on grounds that the complainant has himself admitted before the police authorities that the subject vehicle insured by OP was owned by him and no intimation regarding purchase of vehicle, transfer from RTO and change of vehicle number on or before the date of alleged loss was given. OP further took the defence that the vehicle was parked in open place without observing properly safety measures in view of vehicle having faulty locks and therefore had breached the terms and conditions of the policy and clauses therein. OP further questioned the complaint on grounds of lack of documentary proof for transfer and purchase of the vehicle in question or claimed filed in respect of theft thereof. OP lastly submitted that complainant has neither submitted the documents on 30.06.2014 to its investigator nor has replied to the letter dated 06.01.2016 given to him by hand to satisfied the queries made therein and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.   Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant reproducting his grievance against the OP.

5.   OP filed evidence by way of affidavit in reassertion of his defence taken into his written statement and support thereof, placed on record copy of certificate of insurance / private car package policy vide old policy number 041782/31/13/01/00003246 and new policy number 0417823113P113709770 with respect to vehicle number UP23E 0871 insured with OP with effect from 18.05.2013 to 17.05.2014 in favour of complainant and copy of letter dated 06.02.2016 by OP to complainant, both documents exhibited at RW1/1 and RW1/2 respectively.

6.   Written argument filed by complainant to reemphasize his grievance against OP for non approval of theft claim. Written arguments were filed by OP in reassertion of its defence for non consideration of theft claim on grounds taken in written statement and evidence.

7.   Thereafter, OP stopped appearing in the matter October 2017 onwards. The complainant filed an application for placing on record additional documents vital for adjudication of the complaint more specifically    in the light of clarification/ query sought by OP vide its letter dated 06.01.2016 already on record. Despite granting several opportunities to OP to reply to the application, OP failed to appear or reply to the same. The application was allowed and complainant placed on record copy of corrected policy certificate issued by OP on 08.10.2013 with respect to vehicle bearing no. DL-4C-U-7278 with effect from 18.05.2013 to 17.05.2014 vide policy no. xxxxxxxxxxx70 in place of old policy no. xxxxxxxxxx46, copy of endorsement schedule issued by OPs Micro Office with respect to the new registration number DL4CU 7278 and policy no. xxxxxxxxxx46 issued their against with Engine Number DZ2820292 and Chasis No. ZN01258, copy of RC with respect to vehicle no. DL4CU7278, copy of delivery receipt pertaining to sale transfer of vehicle dated 21.03.2012 purchased by complainant from M/s Chaudhary Motors for total consideration of Rs. 3.60 lacs, copy of passbook entry of Rs. 3925/- transferred through NEFT by OP on 29.04.2014 as wind-screen glass claim lodged by complainant in 2013 with respect to vehicle number DL4CU 7278 and letter dated 11.09.2017 by complainant to OP requesting for claim approval documents pertaining to the amount of Rs. 3925/- paid by OP on 19.04.2014 with respect to his insured vehicle DL4CU 7278.

8.   Complainant filed additional notes of arguments in which he submitted that the subject vehicle having been purchased by him on 21.03.2012 was duly got transferred from concerned RTO on 28.03.2012 and was got insured  with OP in May 2013 and prior to theft of the subject vehicle, OP had cleared the claim of Rs. 3925/- which was credited in his bank account post theft on 19.04.2014 and it was only during the process of said claim that the complainant noticed wrong vehicle number, chassis no. and engine number entered into in the policy certificate and therefore, got the same corrected by OP vide endorsement of the policy on 08.10.2013. Lastly, complainant argued that the three queries raised by OP vide letter dated 6.1.2016 are irrelevant since the policy was issued by OP only after physical inspection of vehicle and taking the RC and previous policy despite which it mentioned three endorsement/ entries incorrectly in the policy certificate which were corrected on 08.10.2013 and since the vehicle was stolen in January 2014, therefore, question of endorsement could not be raised.

9.   On directions issued by this Forum vide order dated 27.05.2019 to satisfy the queries raised by OP in its letter dated 06.01.2016, complainant filed his affidavit deposing the factum of sale purchase, transfer, insurance of the subject vehicle DL4CU 7278 and OP having given endorsement dated 08.10.2013 for correction of vehicle no., chassis number and engine number on the policy. Complainant further deposed that he has no concern with vehicle number UP23 E 0871 and lastly submitted that the insurance company having already paid the claim for wind screen glass with respect to insured vehicle bearing no. DL4CU 7278 post theft on 19.04.2014 cannot raise objection to clear the instant theft claim with respect thereto, intimation of which was duly given to its Micro Incharge Department  of OP on 22.01.2014.

10.      We have heard the arguments forwarded by counsel for complainant carefully scrutinized the documents placed on record / relied upon by all parties. After October 2017, OPs did not appear after filing written arguments and failed to appear and address oral arguments. However, pleadings were already complete qua it and shall be duly considered as per the settled law passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Bank of India Vs N V Deoras 1997 (3) CPR 63 (NC) that even if OP is absent, commission / Forum must consider averments in version before passing orders. Therefore the pleadings of OP1 & OP2 shall be taken into consideration while passing orders.

11.      The case falls for adjudication. The OP has contented in its written that vehicle no. UP23 E 0871 was insured in the name of Kanti Prasad Tyagi vide policy no. 041782/31/13/01/0000/3241 for the period of 17.05.2013 to 16.05.2014 for an IDV of Rs. 1.14 lacs. However, OP has not placed on record any such cover note/ policy certificate or insurance proof. The OP has made contradictory averment in para 10 of preliminary objection and para 6 of reply on merits pertaining to theft intimation by the complainant in which firstly, it states no intimation of theft and contrarily it admits intimation given by complainant to OP on 23.01.2014 when visit by OP officials to complainant was made on 22.01.2014 post theft. No repudiation letter of claim has been placed on record by OP. The letter dated 06.01.2016 relied upon by OP for three queries raised therein to the complainant has been written after almost two years of theft and the said letter is conspicuously silent on UP23 E 0871 having allegedly being insured in the name of Shri Kanti Prasad Tyagi as averred by OP itself in written statement. Moreover, the certificate of insurance pertaining to UP23 E 0871 in favour of the complainant doesn’t mention the endorsement of Make/Model and OP has not placed on record any proof of alleged / claimed ownership of the said vehicle qua the complainant, the column left blank with Misc. written. The complainant on the contrary has placed on record all the documents pertaining to his bonafide ownership of vehicle no. DL-4C-U-7278 ranging from purchase delivery receipt, RC, Transport Department particulars and most importantly both policy certificates with respect to the incorrectly mentioned vehicle, engine and chassis no. in policy no. xxxxxxxx46 later on corrected / endorsed on 08.10.2013 vide certificate of insurance for policy no. ending xxxxx70 with respect to vehicle no. xxxxxx7278 with engine no. DZ820292 and chassis no. ZN01258 and all the three entries are mentioned in the criminal records, NCRB report etc., placed on record by complainant alongwith complaint. A very relevant argument has been raised by complainant that the OP had settled its accidental claim for wind-screen glass raised by complainant with respect to the subject insured vehicle in 2013 which the OP passed post theft in April 2014 vide NEFT of Rs. 3925/- and also gave endorsement schedule under its stamp and seal for the corrected policy for vehicle no. DL-4C-U-7278 on 08.10.2013 at the time of process of the said claim. After bestowing our anxious consideration to the material placed on record and on appreciation of exhaustive documents placed on record by the complainant in support of his complaint which should also stand  its ground, we are of the considered opinion that OP has been deficient in service and guilty of dereliction of duty having provided incorrect policy with incorrect endorsements therein and blaming complainant for discrepancy therein despite having corrected the said mistake in the subsequent policy and also for non-consideration of genuine claim of the complainant with regard to the theft of the insured vehicle  DL-4C-U-7278. OP cannot be allowed to blow hot & cold in the same breath i.e. for allowing a claim in 2013 and rejecting a claim in 2014 with respect to the same vehicle on ground of ownership thereof. We, therefore, allow the present complaint and directed the OP to process the theft claim of the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. We further direct OP to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation charges to the complainant also within 30 days receipt of this order.

12.      Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

 13.     File be consigned to record room.

14.      Announced on  29.11.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member