IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)



Date of Decision : 29 .07.2009


Appeal no. FA-09/441

(Appeal against the order dated 18.05.2009 passed by District Forum New Delhi, in complaint case no. 910/2006)





Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company

15th floor, Amba Deep Building,

KG Marg, New Delhi.





…..Appellant.



VS





Sh. Surendra Kumar Devgun

R/o 120, LD Block

Pitampura, New Delhi-110088.





……Respondent.



CORAM



Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member.

Shri. M.L. Sahni, Member.



1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the

judgment?



2. To be referred to the reporter or not?











Ms. RUMNITA MITTAL, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)



1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum dated 18.05.2009 whereby the appellant was directed to pay to the respondent the insured value of the car i.e. Rs. 3,55,450/- subject to his furnishing the indemnity bond as well as Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 5000/- towards cost of litigation on the ground that the District Fourm has not taken into consideration the report of the surveyor dated 17.06.2006.

2. The case of the respondent, in brief, before the District Forum was that the respondent was the owner of Maruti Zen 2005 Model LXI Euro-3 car registration no. DL 3C AD 4648 and the said vehicle was insured with the appellant for an assessed value of Rs. 3,55,450/- for the period 28.7.2005 to 27.7.2006 on the payment of the requisite premium. On 6th December, 2005 the said vehicle was stolen from Wazirpur Delih near Bikaner Sweets. As the respondent was away to Chandigargh at the time of theft, he could not personally lodge the relevant FIR in this regard on 6th December, 2005. However a friend of the respondent Sh. Amit Tanwar informed the police station of Saraswati Vihar, North West District, New Delhi on the same day. He also informed the respondent who immediately rushed to Delhi and made a complaint to the said police station on 7th December, 2005. Thereafter respondent made frantic search for appellant’s Delhi office and on coming to know of the same from the Telephone Directory Services i.e. on 10th or 11th December 2005, the respondent also informed the appellant and preferred the claim. After lodging of the aforesaid claim by the respondent, the appellant appointed a surveyor who visited the residence of the respondent and recorded the necessary particulars. In the meantime, PS Saraswati Vihar recorded the FIR on 19.12.2005. Police gave non-traceable Report on 30.6.2006. Appellant repudiated the claim. Respondent sent a legal notice to the appellant in response to which the appellant has taken up the same plea of delay and unsubstantiated alleged misrepresentation of facts.

3. On the other hand the version of the appellant in his written statement filed before the District Forum was that the date of incident as mentioned by the respondent is not beyond doubt as the FIR was lodged by the respondent on 19.12.2005 and not on 07.12.2005 as wrongly sated by the respondent. Further the intimation of loss was given to the appellant only after a lapse of 20 days . However, the appellant had appointed an investigator “ The Shield” to investigate into the incident who submitted their report dated 17.6.2006 whereby it is established that the insurance company failed to convince the investigator on the queries raised in order to ascertain the genuineness of the event. The investigator recommended the repudiation of the claim on the basis of findings that the car though purchased, insured and registered in the name of one Mr. S.K. Devgun was actually

owned by Mr. Amit Tanwar. Further more the failure of the respondent in identifying the person for whose marriage the car was taken shows the falsity of the statement of respondent and his friend Mr. Amit.

4. We have heard the arguments advanced on behalf the appellant at the admission stage and also perused the documents/material placed on record.

5. The sole contention of the appellant is that the claim of the respondent was rightly repudiated by the appellant on the basis of surveyor report wherein the authenticity of the factum of theft of car was doubtful and also that vehicle in question though insured and registered in the name of the respondent was actually sold to Mr. Amit Tanwar at the time of alleged theft. Be that as it may the fact that the registration as well as the insurance stood in the name of the respondent belies the said argument/observations of the surveyor which are without any documentary proof. Further the repudiation of the claim of the respondent merely on the ground that there was delay in filing the FIR or intimating the insurance company does not disentitle the respondent from claiming the insurance amount especially since the theft of the vehicle is not denied nor is the fact that insurance policy was in existence at the time of theft. It is a well known fact that on report of theft the police sometimes only records the said information in the Daily Diary and converts it into an FIR later

on. Therefore, date of reporting the theft and date of registering of FIR may vary. No other new ground has been raised before this Commission. Insurance was for the vehicle in question and it becomes irrelevant as to who was the owner at the time of theft especially when there is no documentary proof that the vehicle has been sold since the registration of the vehicle as well as the insurance continues to be in the name of the respondent. As such we did not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum and uphold the same. The appeal is therefore dismissed in-limine

6. FDR / Bank guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned to the appellant forthwith after completion of due formalities.

7. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.





(RUMNITA MITTAL))

PRESIDING MEMBER









(M.L. SAHNI)

MEMBER









sk