Delhi

North East

CC/372/2022

Smt. Manju Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.372/22

In the matter of:

 

 

	Smt. Manju Sharma, W/o Shri Deepak Kumar, R/o H.No. 51-A, Tyagi Vihar, Behind Police Quarter, Nagloi, West, Delhi 110041	Complainant
	Versus
1.             2.	United India Insurance Company Ltd, Having office at: Regional office-I, 8th Floor, Kanchanjunja Building, 18th Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001   Dynamic Risk Management Services Having office at: 1/1888, Near Durga Mandir, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

19.09.2022 30.04.2024 11.06.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35  of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing no. DL 13C 2309, Skoda Superb. The said vehicle was insured by the Opposite Party No. 1. The period of the said policy was from 08.02.2021 to 07.02.2022. The gross value of the said vehicle was Rs. 5,50,000/- and Complainant had paid a premium of Rs. 14,042/- for the same. Complainant stated that on 03.05.2021 the vehicle in question was stolen and regarding the said incident Complainant registered an E-FIR bearing no. 012151 at E-police station Jagat Puri, Delhi. Complainant stated that the police had filed the untraced report before the concerned court and the same was accepted by the court vide order dated 31.07.2021. Complainant stated that after receiving the untraced report she had applied for the claim of the said insured vehicle. Complainant stated that after that the agent of Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. Opposite Party No. 2 had conducted the survey and sent a reminder letter dated 30.06.2021 wherein the Opposite Party No. 2 had asked for some queries from the Complainant and as per the requirement Complainant had sent the reply on 8.07.2021. Complainant stated that on 02.09.2021, Opposite Party No. 1 had rejected the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the Complainant had provided the duplicate keys of the vehicle at the time of conducting the survey and therefore the same was not covered under the policy and there were wear and tear marks were formed insertion of the key in the ignition lock are absent on the blade part of the key and the keys which were provided by the Complainant were not in the lying as per the age of the vehicle i.e. 11 month 3 years and 8/9 days. Complainant stated that she had provided the keys to the Opposite Party No. 2 as she had received from its previous owner and at the time of issuing the insurance policy they were inspected the vehicle and after inspection they were issued the insurance policy. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 5,50,000/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realization. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.01.2023.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

3. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that the Complainant herself had failed to comply with the terms and condition of the policy. It is alleged that the Complainant had submitted the duplicate keys of the vehicle in question and the same were sent for forensic investigation for a detailed report. During the forensic examination, it was found that the keys were duplicate. It is denied that the Complainant has produced the said keys of the vehicle at the time of purchasing the insurance policy to its agent.   

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit, wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

6. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Rakesh Kumar, Manager of Opposite Party No. 1, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1.  The case of the Complainant is that her vehicle was stolen and the said vehicle was having a valid insurance policy at the time of theft. The claim of the Complainant was rejected on the ground that the Complainant has provided the duplicate keys to the surveyor.
8. From the perusal of the record it is clear that the following facts are admitted

(I) Complainant’s car was stolen and it was having a valid insurance at the time of theft. The said insurance policy was issued by Opposite Party No. 1.

(II) FIR regarding the theft of the car was lodged. Police conducted investigation and untraced report was filed by the police.

9. The dispute is that the claim was rejected as the Complainant had produced the duplicate keys of the car in question to the surveyor. On the other hand, the case of the Complainant is that the keys which she had received from the previous owner were handed over to the representative of the insurance company. Her case is that at the time of issuing the policy the said keys were inspected by the agent of the insurance company. The agent of the insurance company did not appear to contradict this averment of the Complainant. The Opposite Party has filed copy of the forensic report. The perusal of the forensic report shows that the expert has opined that the keys in question are not in lying as per the age of the vehicle i.e. 11 years 3 months 8 days. This is not a conclusive observation. The fact is that in case the vehicle is very rarely used, the keys of the vehicle would remain intact. Therefore, not much reliance can be placed on the report of the expert. The Opposite Party did not produce any evidence to rebut the averment of the Complainant that the said keys were not examined by its agent/representative at the time of issuing the insurance policy. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party has failed to prove its case. Therefore, it is held that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1. Hence, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 5,50,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No. 1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.    
10. Order announced on 11.06.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)