Delhi

North East

CC/74/2022

Sh. Yogender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Co Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

05 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. 74/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Yogender Singh S/o Sh. Ram Bahadur R/o H.No. 117, St. No. 11, Railway Marg, Saboli Village, Shahdara, New Delhi-110093		Complainant
		Versus
	1.           2.	M/s Co Digit General Insurance Ltd. Spring Board 67 & 68 Chandra Bhawan Building, 3rd Floor, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019 Through its Authorized Person   Shivakari Finance Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office at:- Flat No. 303, Taj Apartment, 2 Factory Road, Safdarjung, Ring Road, New Delhi-110029 Through its Authorised Person		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		28.03.22 24.05.24 05.11.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, 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 Complainant is the registered owner of the E-rickshaw bearing registration no. DL 9 ER 7876 which was insured by the Opposite Party No.1 vide policy no. D010252159/11112019, valid from 11.11.19 to 10.11.20. Complainant stated that during the insured period, the said E-rickshaw of the Complainant was stolen and he registered an FIR bearing no. 006341 dated 22.02.20 with the PS E-Police Station. The Complainant stated that before getting the said FIR registered, he had informed about the theft of the vehicle to the Opposite Party No.1 and asked to pay the insured amount and their official asked him to get the FIR firstly enabling them to process the claim of the Complainant.  After registration of the said FIR, the Complainant visited the office of the Opposite Party No.1 along with the relevant documents including copy of FIR, insurance cover note etc. requesting the Opposite Party No.1 to release the insured amount but they not only refused to release the insured amount but also refused to receive his documents pertaining to the said vehicle without assigning any reason.  Despite repeated requests and visits of the Complainant, the Opposite Party not only failed to release the insured amount but also refused to receive the relevant documents in respect of the said vehicle as well as insurance policy.  Complainant had send legal notice to the Opposite Party dated 28.02.22 despite receipt of the legal notice Opposite Party neither gave any reply nor complied with the same. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of the Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to make the insured amount of E-rickshaw to the Complainant along with interest @ 24 % p.a. from the date of theft of the vehicle. He further prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation cost.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. In its written statement it is stated that the claim was not maintainable. The Complainant had produced the driving license which was valid to drive only motorcycle and the same was not valid for driving E-rickshaw. This amounts to breach the conditions of the policy. It is stated that the Complainant had left the keys of the insured vehicle in the E-rickshaw and thus he was negligent which is breach of conditions of the policy. It is stated that the Complainant has stated in his statement that one passenger was smoking a cigarette and he exerted the smoke on the face of Complainant and thereafter Complainant became unconscious and the said passenger snatched his E-rickshaw. It is alleged that the FIR lodged by the Complainant does not match with this statement of the Complainant. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.

 

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1

3. 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

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

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Sh. Aniruddh Kiran Kale, AR of the Opposite Party wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that his E-rickshaw was stolen and he lodged FIR in this regard and after investigation untraced report was filed by the police. His case is that his claim was not passed without any valid reason. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the Complainant has made statement that his         E-rickshaw was snatched by some passenger who has intoxicated him. Its case is that the Complainant was also not having a valid driving license. Its case is also that the Complainant has not filed untraced report.
7. The perusal of the evidence filed by the Complainant shows that Complainant has filed copy of the FIR and perusal of the same shows that the Complainant has stated in the FIR that his E-rickshaw was stolen from Babu Ram Chauk Maujpur Delhi between 1:00 pm to 1:10 pm on 22.02.20. After this FIR investigation was conducted and police filed the untraced report which was accepted by the court of Ms. Ambika Singh ACMM Shahdara District. During investigation of the police the version of the Complainant i.e. E-rickshaw was stolen from Babu Ram Chauk Maujpur Delhi on 22.02.20 at about 1:00 pm to 1:10 pm was believed. On the other hand, so far as the alleged statement of the Complainant as referred to by the Opposite Party has not been proved nor the original statement has been produced nor any evidence of the person has been led before whom the Complainant has allegedly made the said statement. So far as the driving license of the Complainant is concerned, it is of not much importance as the E-rickshaw was stolen while it was in stationary condition and it was not been driven by the Complainant. Therefore, the assertions made the Opposite Party cannot be believed.
8. Admittedly, at the time of theft of the E-rickshaw, the E-rickshaw of the Complainant was insured by the Opposite Party No.1. The insured value of the   E-rickshaw is 99,750/-. Therefore, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 shall pay the Complainant the amount of Rs. 99,750/- along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- for litigation expenses to the Complainant with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
9. Admittedly, E-rickshaw was financed by Opposite Party No.2. On 22.06.20 an amount of Rs. 70,822/- was due towards the Complainant. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 will pay the above said amount to the Complainant after he produces No Due Certificate issued in his favour by the Opposite Party No.2 and after completion of the other formalities by the Complainant.  
10. Order announced on 05.11.24.

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