DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 543/2016
D.No.________________ Dated:__________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAVINDER BENIWAL,
S/o SH. KARAN SINGH BENIWAL,
R/o 274, PITAM PURA, DELHI. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER),
HAVING REGD. OFFICE AT: PLOT No.-36,
2nd FLOOR, SATYA BHAWAN,
COMMUNITY CENTER, WAZIRPUR INDL. AREA,
RING ROAD, DELHI. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 12.05.2016
Date of decision:12.06.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle Maruti Esteem bearing registration no. DL-7CH-1240 and the said vehicle was duly insured with OP and the said vehicle of the
CC No. 543/2016 Page 1 of 7
complainant was stolen on 18.09.2015 and accordingly a FIR bearing no.013476 dated 18.09.2015 was duly registered with E-Police Station M.V. theft under Sec.-379 IPC and information regarding theft of the said vehicle as well as copy of the FIR with other relevant documents was forwarded to OP. The complainant further alleged that the complainant lodged his claim pertaining to the said vehicle and in compliance of the rules and regulations in regard to insurance policy, the complainant lodged his claim with OP vide claim file no. 12098 but OP malafidely and showing deficiency in service on its part, rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground of totally baseless and unwanted excuses. Thereafter, since the date of getting his vehicle insured with OP, the complainant has been regularly making the payment of the premium to OP upto date but OP illegally and mischievously rejected the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.80,000/- and the said act of OP shows its total carelessness, negligence and deficiency in service on its part and as such the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 18.03.2016 which was duly served upon OP. The complainant further alleged that despite the fact that untrace report has been issued by the Hon’ble Court of Ld. MM, Delhi and despite its copy having been supplied to OP, OP hasfailed to pass the claim of the complainant and on account of the careless, negligent and deficient act of OP, lots of inconvenience and
CC No. 543/2016 Page 2 of 7
delay has been caused in the matter to the complainant, for which OP is liable to compensate the complainant.
2. On these allegations the complainant filed the complaint praying for direction to OP to pay the claim of Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a. as well as compensation in terms of money for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss suffered by the complainant, mental agony and harassment and has also sought cost of litigation.
3. OP has been contesting the case of the complainant and has filed written statement. In its written statement OP submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP further submitted that there is no relationship of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act between the complainant and OP after the claim has already been repudiated vide letter dated 02.03.2016 and the complainant has concealed the material facts. OP further submitted that the true facts of the case are that the vehicle no. DL-7CH-1240 was insured by OP vide policy no. 2227003115P104826946 valid from 27.07.2015 to 26.07.2016 in the name of the complainant and the liability of the company was subject to the terms & conditions of the policy. On 13.10.2015, an intimation of loss due to theft took place on 18.09.2015 of the said vehicle was received by OP and the competent authority after going through the claim file and documents submitted by the complainant found that there is delay of 24 days in the claim
CC No. 543/2016 Page 3 of 7
intimation which deprived OP from an opportunity to investigate and apprehend the thief/culprit, as the alleged theft took place on 18.09.2015 which is clear violation of condition no-1 of the policy term & condition, accordingly to which the insured has to inform to the company about the loss immediately after the loss. Thereafter, a letter dated 23.12.2015 was written to the complainant to give explanation in delayed intimation of the claim but no proper and reasonable explanation was given by the complainant, therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts the claim of the complainant was repudiated.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP. In the rejoinder the complainant submitted that being a layman he did not know that the insurance company should be informed of theft of the vehicle within 24 hours.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of his voter ID card, copy of FIR no.013476 dated 18.09.2015, copy of order dated 28.10.2015 passed by MM, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, copy of policy, copy of letter/final notice dated 23.12.2015 sent by OP to the complainant, copy of letter dated 09.01.2016 sent by the complainant to OP, copy of letter dated 02.03.2016 sent by OP to the complainant and copy of legal notice dated 18.03.2016 sent by the complainant through
CC No. 543/2016 Page 4 of 7
his Counsel to OP by Regd. AD/Courier/Speed Post alongwith postal receipt.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of OP Sh. Amit Kapoor, Sr. Divisional Manager for OP filed his affidavit which is on the basis of the written statement of OP. OP also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of the complainant and documents placed on record. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant.
8. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for the complainant relied on an authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case entitled OM Prakash Vs. Reliance Gene. Ins. Co. Ltd. decided on 04.10.2017.
9. As already observed, OP has failed to lead any evidence in support of its defence that the complainant has violated the terms & conditions of the policy. The complaint of theft of the vehicle was immediately lodged with the police on 18.09.2015 and claim was filed with OP.
10. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above noted case held as under:
“It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle may not straightaway go to the insurance company to claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurance company immediately after the theft of the vehicle. However, this condition should not bar settlement of genuine claims. The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has to be based on valid grounds.
CC No. 543/2016 Page 5 of 7
Rejection of the claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical manner will result in loss of confidence of policy holders in the insurance industry. The condition regarding the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. It needs no emphasis that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of the consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves liberal construction. This laudable object should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under the Act.”
11. Admittedly, the complainant has already lodged an FIR with the police about theft of the vehicle. So, we are of opinion that it does not lie in the mouth of OP to reject the claim only on the ground that no notice in writing was given to OP about the theft of the vehicle immediately after theft. OP has not disputed the fact that the complainant has lodged a bogus and false FIR with the police. Thus, OP has no case in its favour and OP has illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. We are further of opinion that the OP has deliberately and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. Accordingly, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service.
12. Accordingly, OP is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.80,000/- as the insured value of the vehicle of the complainant.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
CC No. 543/2016 Page 6 of 7
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- as litigation cost.
13. The above amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 12thday of June, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 543/2016 Page 7 of 7
UPLOADED BY :-SATYENDRA JEET
