Delhi

North East

CC/451/2015

Shri Sidharth Maurya - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

19 Feb 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. 451/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Sidharth Morya S/o Late Heera Lal Morya Village-Saraba Post-Saraba Distt-Hapur.	Complainant
	Versus
	United India Insurance. Co. 202, Vardhman Complex, C-2 Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053	Opposite Party

 

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

18.11.2015 19.02.2019 19.02.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that he was owner of Toyota Tavera Neo car which was registered as commercial vehicle bearing registration no UP-37-T1015 and insured with OP vide policy no 041781/31/12/01/00029925 with effect from 26.03.2013 to 25.03.2014 for a total IDV of  Rs. 6,95,000/- on payment of premium of Rs. 22,350/- to OP by  the complainant. The subject vehicle got stolen on 07.11.2013 near Natthu Colony Bridge, Shahdara, Delhi and FIR No. 365/13 was registered on 08.11.2013 under section 379 IPC with PS Mansarovar Park, Delhi. The complainant informed the OP the same day about the theft and submitted the required documents on receipt of letter from OP requiring original documents to which the complainant informed the OP that all original documents of the subject vehicle were inside the vehicle itself at the time of theft. Thereafter the complainant visited OPs officer several times for settlement of his claim but OP failed to process his claim and therefore feeling aggrieved by unlawful , unfair and illegal act of the OP of non processing of claim amounting to deficiency of service, the complainant was compelled to file present complaint praying for issuance of directions to the OP to process the claim on the IDV of Rs. 6,95,000/- and also pay compensation of Rs. 40,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 15,000/-as cost of litigation.

The complainant has attached copy of purchase invoice of subject vehicle Cheverolet Tavera Neo, copies of tourist permit, fitness certificate, annual tax, insurance certificate, driver badge etc., intimation of theft to NCRB, Delhi, copy of FIR and challan and other related documents.

2. Notice was issued to the OP on 18.12.2015 but OP failed to appear despite service effected on 02.01.2016 and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.04.2016.
3. The complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments on 27.09.2016 and 31.10.2018 respectively exhibiting copy of RC, copy of insurance certificate and copy of FIR. In the interim, in January 2018, the complainant informed that OP had asked the complainant to collect the documents from its office which he received in February 2018.
4. During the course of oral arguments, the Forum had put a specific query to the counsel for complainant about any proof of submission of documents or claim form or intimation of theft to the OP given by complainant in November 2013 to which the complainant had no answer except showing receiving of OP on zerox copies of the vehicle documents on 12^th January 2018 given under its seal. The complainant has not filed any receipt / acknowledgment given by OP or any of its agents to confirm having received intimation of theft. The Hon’ble National Commission in Sajid Ali vs Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. III (2018) CPJ 168 (NC) observed where the petitioner had not filed any receipt or acknowledgment given by insurance agent to confirm having received intimation of theft that the onus to prove that written intimation of theft of the vehicle was immediately given to the insurance company or its agent was on the petitioner and failing to do so was a case of withholding of best evidence by the complainant. Therefore adverse presumption has to be drawn against the complainant in having failed to establish that he gave immediate written intimation of theft to the insurance company. The Hon’ble National Commission had therefore upheld the order of District Forum and Rajasthan SCDRC in dismissing the complaint and appeal against the dismissal on grounds of no material irregularity in the order of dismissal.
5. In the present case too, curiously on perusal of record, there is no documentary evidence to support complainant’s own averment of having informed the OP of the theft of the vehicle or any letter of the OP in this regard for submission of documents or such like. Therefore applying the observation of Hon’ble NCDRC in the afore cited case law for adverse presumption to be drawn against the complainant in such a case of withholding his best evidence and as goes the maxim ‘ignorance of law is no excuse’, we dismiss the present complaint for the same being found devoid of merits with no order as to costs.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on  19.02.2019   

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member