Delhi

North East

CC/362/2022

Talib Karim - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Nov 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. 362/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Talib Karim S/o Sh. Abdul Karim R/o H.No. 133, St. No. 03, Kardampuri Ext. Pur Shahdara, Sabhapur, North East, Delhi 110094		Complainant
		Versus
		Universal Sompo General Ins. Co. Ltd. Through its Manager Office at:- 410 Nehru Place, New Delhi 110048		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		09.09.22 31.07.24 18.11.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

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

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant is the registered owner of vehicle/car Laura CRDI Skoda bearing no. DL6CM5158, engine no. CLC01860, Chassis no. TMBCNDIZ8CA151699 and the said vehicle got insured with the Opposite Party vide policy no.  AVG/2371/10031885 valid from 28.08.21 to 27.08.22 for insured declared value of Rs. 7,80,000/-. On 27/28.11.21, at about 12.41 AM, the Complainant was going by the vehicle insured. As he reached near Jahanpura Pulia, Kandhla Road, PS Kairana, Distt. Shamli, then he found some smoke in the car due to fire, he immediately stopped his car and save himself. Thereafter Complainant made telephonic call on 100 number and fire station then police official and fire brigade came on spot they tried to extinguish fire but the said vehicle burnt completely and police lodged GD no. 26 dated 28.11.21 in PS Kairana, Distt. Shamli. Thereafter Complainant sent information regarding the above said incident to Opposite Party and Opposite Party deputed surveyor and surveyor inspected the vehicle and registered claim bearing claim no. CL21189488/00001 and Complainant submitted the entire relevant documents to Opposite Party and Opposite Party assured to release the claim amount within few days. The vehicle of Complainant was burnt completely during subsistence of above said policy and Complainant submitted all relevant documents demanded by Opposite Party from time to time but the matter is delayed by Opposite Party intentionally and deliberately. Opposite Party had failed to release the claim amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- to the Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. the Complainant has prayed for the claim amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- along with interest 18 % p.a. and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-on account of mental harassment. He further prayed for Rs. 33,000/- for litigation expenses.

 

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party has admitted that the subject vehicle was insured by them from 28.08.21 to 27.08.22 for IDV of 7,80,000/-. It is also admitted that the Complainant timely intimated that his vehicle had caught fire and burnt completely and filed claim.  However, Opposite Party‘s contention is that while settling the claim, it was observed that the Complainant has not submitted requisite documents. It is further contended that surveyor in his final report informed that despite reminders the Complainant had not submitted the required documents. It is submitted that based on the findings of the surveyor, Opposite Party repudiated the claim for not submitting the requisite documents. Thus the present complaint be dismissed.

Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed hisaffidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

4. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party filed affidavit of Ms. Ankita Bose, AR of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

5. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for theparties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
6. It is the case of the Complainant that his vehicle was duly insured by the Opposite Party and during the subsistence of valid policy, the vehicle was burnt completely and Opposite Party was timely intimated by the Complainant and claim was filed. But, despite submitting all the requisite documents, Opposite Party has failed to settle the claim and sent a closure letter closing the claim on the ground of non-submission of requisite documents. On the other hand , Opposite Party contended that Complainant had not submitted requisite documents as required for settling the claim.
7. It is not in dispute that the subject vehicle was duly insured with Opposite Party when the vehicle was reportedly burnt and the claim was timely lodged. The contention of Opposite Party is that based on the findings of the surveyor, the claim was closed for not submitting the requisite documents. As per the surveyor’s report, the cause of alleged incident was identified as fire due to short-circuiting and the same is not supported by any documents.
8. The perusal of survey report shows that the surveyor had confirmed the incident and also that referred Fire brigade report also. It is also written in the surveyor’s report that Complainant had submitted to the surveyor an application informing the concerned police station and the same is duly attested by the concerned police station but no FIR has been provided.
9. On the issue of absence of FIR, we are of the considered view that FIR is not required in such cases of claims for vehicle damages if the accident is not an offence. It is also noted that the surveyors has confirmed the alleged incident  and assessed the loss and finalised the net claim amount to the tune of Rs.7, 24,625.00 under the subject policy.
10. The Opposite Party had closed the claim on the ground of non-submission of certain requisite documents which in our opinion were not relevant for considering the claim of the Complainant, hence, Opposite Party has been deficient in service in denying the valid claim of the Complainant.
11. In view of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party has been deficient in services towards the Complainant in not settling the Complainant’s valid claim under an effective policy and closing the same without any tenable reason.
12. Thus, the present complaint is allowed and Opposite Party i.e. Universal Sompo General Ins. Co. Ltd. is directed to pay to the Complainant  Rs.7, 24,625/- (net claim amount as per surveyor) towards own Damage claim along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.
13. Order announced on 18.11.24.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)     Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President