Delhi

East Delhi

CC/133/2019

MUKESH GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INS. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.133/2019

 

	MUKESH GUPTA FLAT NO.212-B, POCKET-1, PHASE-1, MAYUR VIHAR, DELHI – 110091	….Complainant
Versus
	UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE P-19-20, PHASE-1, MAYUR VIHAR, PANDAV NAGAR, PATPARGANJ, NEW DELHI, EAST DELHI – 110091   ALSO AT:-   UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE-11, SERVICE HUB, CORE-IV, 1ST FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR COMPLEX, LAXMI NAGAR, DISTRICT CENTRE, DELHI – 110092	……OP

 

Date of Institution	:	18.04.2019
Judgment Reserved on	:	01.09.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	14.09.2023

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

JUDGMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant w.r.t. stolen vehicle. 
2. It is necessary to bring on record that the present complaint is not drafted by counsel rather has been addressed to the Commission by the Complainant directly and the Notice there of was issued to the OP straight away therefore the language as mentioned by the complainant in the complaint is written in the form of letter and is taken on the face of it. 
3. Brief facts which can be ascertained from the letter/complaint are that he is the owner of Scooter having Registration No.DL 7SU 0233 which was insured with the OP from the day one of purchase of the Scooter i.e. 19.07.2001 and it was being insured every year and it was lastly insured with respect to IDV of Rs.5000/- on 15.10.2016 which was valid upto 14.10.2017 and the said vehicle was stolen from Mayur Vihar, Delhi for which he lodged the FIR.  Copy of which is enclosed and he approached the OP for reimbursing the claim but the OP vide letter dated 14.11.2017 repudiated the claim on account of fitness of the vehicle which has already expired on 19.07.2017.  Therefore, claim was not given to the complainant, which according to the complainant is mis-representation by OP at the time of taking the policy and it has accordingly prayed that OP be directed to settle the claim for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and legal fee of Rs.10,000/-.    
4. The OP has filed the written statement taking preliminary objection that present complaint is gross mis-use of the process of law. It is without any cause of action, the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the OP and mis-represented at the time of renewal of policy by not disclosing the fact that fitness of the vehicle of the complainant has already expired and therefore the complainant has no merit and  the complaint is liable to be dismissed and may kindly be dismissed.  The ownership of the vehicle having Registration No. DL 7SU 0233, and it was insured with OP are not denied but it is stated that it was insured on the mis-representation of complainant and by concealing the material facts w.r.t. fitness.  It is further stated that it was the responsibility of the complainant to get the fitness of the vehicle from the RTA before getting it insured which was not done and therefore the complaint of the complainant be dismissed. 
5. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder thereby stating that the vehicle was insured on 15.10.2016 and if the OP states that the fitness had expired on 19.07.2016 i.e. around 3-4 months prior to issuing the policy, then the OP should not have insured his vehicle on 15.10.2016 i.e. for the 16^th year and therefore there is no mis-representation by the complainant.  All other facts are denied and contents of complaint are reiterated. 
6. Complainant has filed his evidence and OP has filed evidence of Sh. Saurav Anant, Area Manager of OP. 
7. Both the parties have filed their written arguments and the Commission has perused the record. 
8. The OP in the written statement has relied upon certain judgments i.e. United India Insurance Co. V/s Ajay Nagpal S/o Sh. Yashpal Nagpal being 1^st appeal No.36/2015 decided on 10.01.2019 by Hon’ble SCDRC Uttarakhand.   Another order of CC NO.14/498 titled Dharman E V V/s Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. House V/s Manager New India Insurance decided on 31.10.2018 passed by Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum Thrissur-3 and another one i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Sushil Kumar Godara being Civil Appeal No.5887/2021 decided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat in which the insurance claim was rejected solely on the base of fitness of the vehicle.
9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant on the other hand has distinguished all the three judgments stating that in all the three judgments, relied upon by OP the commercial vehicle was involved for which fitness is required as per Motor Vehicle Act whereas in the case of complainant it was merely a two wheeler scooter and not a commercial vehicle and therefore no fitness is required for a two wheeler under MV Act.  It is further argued that even if the fitness would have been required, and if the contention of OP be accepted that the fitness has expired on 15.07.2016 then taking the premium in the month of October 2016 and insuring the vehicle that too by writing in the Policy where query was sought w.r.t. whether vehicle is obsolete or not, the OP has mentioned in the Policy that it was not an obsolete vehicle and it is argued that once the insurance Co. itself states that the vehicle is not obsolete, then it, cannot take the plea that the fitness of the vehicle had expired.  It is also argued by the complainant that the fitness of a two wheeler Scooter is not required under any of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act.  To expand his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP perhaps intends to argue that the vehicle is more than 15 years old and as  such fitness was required but surprisingly this is not the plea taken by the OP in the entire written statement.  Even otherwise the policy directions which has been issued by Hon’ble National Green Tribunal and being approved by the Courts is only w.r.t. the fact that 15 years old vehicle would not ply on the road and this is not the case of the complainant or the OP that vehicle was being plied or it has been stolen from a place where vehicle had gone or had been taken by someone.  The theft as per compliant has occurred and vehicle has been stolen from the house of the complainant itself meaning thereby it was in stationary condition when it was stolen and it had not been taken for the purpose of plying it anywhere. It may be an interesting plea but this is not the argument of the counsel for the OP as in the entire written statement the OP has not mentioned at all that vehicle was 15 years old and as such was not insurable.  Not only this, the OP in the policy issued by it has stated that vehicle is not obsolete and above all it is not the contention of the OP that this information is given by the complainant w.r.t. the vehicle being not obsolete.  Further, it is alleged by the complainant that in the last 15 years the vehicle is being insured by the same insurance co. i.e. OP and therefore OP has all the data/information w.r.t. the present vehicle and had been insuring the vehicle on regular basis and therefore it should be in the knowledge of OP that vehicle has become more than 15 years old or it has become obsolete.  This also is not the defence of the OP and the only defence of the OP is that the vehicle is not having fitness certificate.  Why a two wheeler vehicle would require a fitness certificate has not been explained. Therefore, the OP has not been able to prove that it had repudiated the claim only for valid reasons rather complainant has been able to prove that OP has insured his vehicle, it has insured the vehicle after the expiry of 15 years and has taken the premium and it has rejected his claim without any valid reason after having accepted the premium.  Therefore, the complainant is able to prove that there is deficiency on the part of OP. 
10. Therefore, the Commission hereby orders that:

• OP would pay the complainant the insured value i.e. Rs.5,000/- with an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint / or rejection of the claim till actual payment and also pay a compensation of Rs.4,000/- including cost. 

This order be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and if not complied with, then an interest @ 9% on both the above amounts would be payable by OP to the complainant from the date of filing the complaint/ or rejection of the claim  till the date of actual payment. 

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 14.09.2023.