Delhi

East Delhi

CC/595/2013

NARENDER PAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GEN. INS. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jul 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 595/13

Sh. NARENDER PAL

R/O B-100, GALI NO.-8,

KANTI NAGAR EXTENTION KRISHNA NAGAR,

DELHI-110051 ….Complainant

•  

 

UNIVERSAL, SOMPO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,

903 & 904, 9^TH FLOOR,

GDITL TOWERS, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE,

•  
•                                                                                           ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 15.07.2013

Judgment Reserved for: 28.02.2018

Judgment Passed on: 06.03.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

Jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked by Shri Narender Pal, the complainant, against Universal, Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,(OP) alleging deficiency in service.
The complainant being the owner of vehicle bearing no. DL 3CAC6930 got the same insured with OP for IDV of Rs.4,73,850/- for a period from 24.02.2012 to 23.02.2013 by paying a premium of Rs. 16,386/- vide policy no. 2311/52070175/00/000. On 11.10.2012 around 10:00 pm to 11:00 the vehicle of the complainant was stolen for which FIR no. 336/2012 dated 12.10.2012 under section 379, IPC was registered. Thereafter claim was filed with OP (it has been stated by the complainant that his claim was not settled for 8 months even after several personal insists to the OP’s office) which was ultimately repudiated on 22.01.2013. Hence, the present complaint praying for directions to OP to pay Rs.4,73,850/- being the IDV of stolen vehicle, pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of compensation for harassment & mental agony, Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

Copy of RIR no. 336/2012 dated 12.10.2012 with Police Station, Madhu Vihar, Under Section 379, IPC, copy of letter dated 25.04.2013 to the complainant by OP, copy of repudiation letter dated 22.01.2013 are the annexure with the complaint.

Reply was filed by OP upon service of the notice, where they have taken pleas in their defense such as the insured vehicle was under the ownership of the previous ownerMr. Ramesh Kumar Saxena, as RC was not transferred in the name of the complainant, there was abreach of policy condition no.4 which provides that the insured shall take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition…” which was admitted by the complainant in his statement that he had received only one set of manufacturer’s key from previous owner thus had failed to take reasonable steps to insure safety of the insured vehicle. It was submitted that the complainant was negligent by not changing the locks and leaving the vehicle unattended. OP have also stated that the complainant has mentioned dated of theft as 04.10.2012 in his letter and 11.10.2012 in other correspondences. Res of the contents of the complaint have been denied.

In rejoinder to the written statement filed by the OP, the contents of the reply were denied and those of the complaint were reaffirmed. It was submitted that the complainant was the owner on the date of theft.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where he got himself examined and has narrated the facts of the complaint on oath.

OP got examined Shri Piyush Shankar, Manager (Legal) who has deposed on oath the contents of their reply and has relied on Ex.OPW1/1- the copy of the insurance, copy of the registration certificate issued in the name of Shri Ramesh Kumar Saxena as Ex.OPW1/2, copy of letter sent by the complainant to OP as Ex.OPW1/3 and letter dated 19.10.2012 as Ex.OPW1/4, copy of letter dated 22.01.2013 & 25.04.2013 as Ex.OPW1/5 and Ex.OPW1/6 respectively. They have stated that the repudiation of the claim was justified, thus, no deficiency in service could be attributed to them.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record. The policy in name of the complainant is not disputed. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground of breach of policy condition no.4 where the insured had failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the security of vehicle, the objection taken by OP is that the complainant was not the owner of the insured vehicle. The complainant has placed on record the “vehicle particulars” issued by the Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi where the Transfer date is written as 21.01.2012, and the owner name is Narender Pal. Thus, the vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant on 21.01.2012 before the date of issuance of policy. Further, OP has not placed on record any proposal form to show on what basis the policy was issued in the name of the complainant. No surveyor report as well has been filed to substantiate their claim. Thus, the repudiation of the claim was arbitrary…, we allow the present complaint and direct OP to pay Rs.4,73,850/- being the IDV along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We also award Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment, this shall be inclusive of litigation expenses.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

(Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                      (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

      MEMBER                                                           MEMBER

 

                                   (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                           PRESIDENT