Delhi

North East

CC/58/2021

Smt. Meenakshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

09 Apr 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. 58/21

 

In the matter of:

 

		Smt. Meenakshi W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar, R/o House No. 38, Gali No. 10, Shakti Garden, Gokalpur, North East, Delhi 110094		Complainant
		Versus
	1.           2.             3.	United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Manager 8th Floor, Kanchanchanga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 11000   M/s Sirohi Home Products Pvt. Ltd., Through its Finance Manager Shop No. 106, Second Floor, Shanker Road Market, (In front of Aggarwal Hardware) New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi 110060   M/s Terra Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Throught its Managing Director, 1449/21, Near Gali No. 10, 10 Ft. Road, Durgapuri, Delhi   Also at: First Floor, The Great Eastern Place, 70, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: DATE OF ORDER:		24.03.2021 01.02.2024 09.04.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant 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 on 21.01.2018, the Complainant had purchased an E-rickshaw bearing no. DL SER 6354 from the Opposite Party No. 3. Complainant stated that she got insured the said vehicle with Opposite Party No. 1. The total cost of the said E-rickshaw was    Rs. 1,30,000/- out of which Rs. 45,000/- were paid by the Complainant in cash to the Opposite Party No. 3 and the remaining amount was financed by the Opposite Party No. 2 against which complainant paid a sum of Rs. 8,000/- dated 01.01.2019. Complainant stated that she handed over four post-dated cheques of Rs. 8,000/- each to the Opposite Party No. 2 which were encashed by it. Complainant stated that against the financed amount in total 12 EMIs of Rs. 8,000/- each out of which Rs. 45,000/- had been paid to the Opposite Party No. 2. Complainant stated that on 02.06.2019, the said E-rickshaw was stolen from in front of GTB Hospital, GTB Nagar, Delhi. The Complainant immediately made a phone call at No. 100 and reported the matter to the police and in this regard E-police station GTB Enclave registered the FIR bearing no. 019618/2019. Complainant stated that in the police report the number of  E-rickshaw was mentioned as DL SER 6364 instead of DL SER 6354 and date of registration of FIR was mentioned as 05.06.2019 instead of 02.06.2019. On 06.06.2019, Complainant sent a request letter to the GTB Hospital for seeking the CCTV footage but the same had not been supplied till date. Complainant stated that she immediately informed the theft incident of the E-rickshaw to the Opposite Party No. 2, who assured that the said information, would be forwarded to the Opposite Party No. 1 and also assured that the claim of the Complainant would be approved from the Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 2 sending their representative to the house of the Complainant with unwanted and repeated demands of EMIs. Complainant stated that being fed up from the repeated demand from the Opposite Party No. 2 she issued a legal notice dated 30.11.2019 to the Opposite Party No. 2 but they did not give any reply. Complainant stated that police authorities submitted their untraced report to the concerned court on 06.07.2019. On 18.01.2021, complainant also sought information under RTI Act from the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police and Opposite Party No. 1 but no response was received from the office of Deputy Commissioner while Opposite Party No. 1 sent its reply dated 04.02.2021 and asked for some documents and as per demand Complainant submitted NOC and Form 35 and also handed over the key of the vehicle to the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No. 1 sent a letter dated 16.03.2021 to the Complainant wherein some formalities were required and the same were complied by the Complainant. Complainant stated that despite completion of all the formalities, Opposite Party No. 1 had failed to pass the claim of the Complainant and on the other hand Opposite Party No. 2 repeatedly coercing upon the Complainant for payment of the EMIs. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party No. 1 to pass the claim of the Complainant and   Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment. Complainant also prayed for litigation cost.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as she had allowed one Mr. Allauddin to drive the              E- rickshaw in question and the said Allauddin was not having any valid licence for driving the E-rickshaw. It is stated that the Complainant did not provide the necessary documents to it despite demands. It is stated that FIR was lodged with delay of 03 days. It is stated that the Complainant has failed to provide any explanation for a delay of 23 days in intimating the claim to it. It is stated that there is no deficiency on its part, however, it is admitted that at the time of the alleged theft, E-rickshaw of the Complainant was having valid insurance policy issued by it. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed their separate written statements and they have denied the allegation of the Complainant and have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. It is the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 that Complainant was required to pay 12 monthly installments of Rs. 8000/- each and she had already paid 5 installment against the total installment of 12 months. It is its case that an amount of        Rs. 97,002/- is due towards the Complainant.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statement of Opposite Parties, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

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

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of  Ms. Rebeca Chopra, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 have been supported.
7. Despite grant of opportunities, Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 did not file the evidence. Therefore, the right to file the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 has been closed vide order dated 04.05.2023.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties to address the arguments. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Complainant is that her E-rickshaw bearing no. DL SER 6354 was stolen from outside of GTB Hospital. She has lodged E-FIR. In the E-FIR the registration no. of the E-rickshaw was wrongly mentioned as DL SER 6364. The case of the Complainant is that after investigation, police submitted Untraced report in the court which was accepted by the court. It is her case that her claim was not passed by the insurance company. On the other hand, the case of the insurance company is that in the E-FIR registration no. of the E-rickshaw has been mentioned as  DL SER 6364 which is different from the actual number. It is also the case of the insurance company that driver of the E-rickshaw namely Mr. Allauddin was not having a valid license when the theft took place. It is also its case that Complainant did not provide the required documents.
9. Admittedly, the E-rickshaw of the Complainant was stolen from outside of the GTB Hospital, Delhi. Admittedly, Complainant has lodged E FIR. The police submitted untraced report in the court which was accepted by the court vide order dated 06.07.2019. So far as, the number of E-rickshaw is concerned, it is correctly mentioned as DL SER 6354 in the untraced report. Therefore, it is establish that E-rickshaw of the Complainant was stolen and the same was not recovered. So far as, the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that at the time of incident, the driven namely Allauddin was not having a valid driving license. The E-rickshaw was stolen while it was not being driven and even otherwise valid driving license has no concerned with the theft of E-rickshaw. Therefore, this contention cannot be believed.
10. In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- i.e. IDV of the E-rickshaw to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. This amount shall be paid to the Complainant by Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. after Complainant submits No Dues Certificate issued by Opposite Party No. 2 and on furnishing the relevant documents by her. Opposite Party No. 1 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation expenses and Rs. 15,000/- on account of mental harassment to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
11. Order announced on 09.04.2024.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President