Delhi

New Delhi

CC/563/2017

Nitin Tyagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Sep 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VI,

DISTT.NEW DELHI, M-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002.

CC/563/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Nitin Tyagi,

R/o A1/67/4,

East Gokul Puri,

Behind Bharat petrol Pump

Loni Road, Delhi 110094                                                        COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

United India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Regional Office-1,

8^th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building,

New Delhi 110001                                                                   OPPOSITY PARTY                                                        

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Bariq Ahmad , Member

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

                                                                   Dated of Institution :07.12.2017

                                                                   Date of Order         :15.09.2022

O R D E R

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in short (CP Act) as amended upto date against the opposite side in short (OP) for the deficiency by the service.
2. Briefly stated the facts alleged in the complaint are that Complainant had taken a policy from opposite party/united India Insurance Co. Ltd. bearing Policy No. 0417003115P106109160, which was valid w.e.f. 27.08.2015 to 26.08.2016. The value of insured vehicle was Rs. 17,50,000/-. The insurance was in respect of one Leyland Bus.
3. It is further alleged that the Complainant has purchased the above said second hand Bus and had parked it 1 Km. away from his residence because there is no space to park it at his residence and bus was properly locked.  It is alleged the said fact has been confirmed by the investigator who was appointed by the insurance company/OP.
4. It is alleged of the vehicle in question is Leyland Bus Bearing Vehicle No. UP-81BU-3602, Chassis No. ZBA031298 and Engine No. CBH149913 Model 2013 Ashok Leyland Bus.
5. It is further alleged that on 08.09.2016, the Bus was properly parked, locked and was  standing in the service lane near house of the Complainant when it was stolen.
6. It is further alleged that after theft the insurer tried to search his vehicle, but no clue was found, he then informed the police about the theft of the vehicle and the FIR No. 023334 dated 09.08.2016 was lodged under section 379 IPC at Police Station Jyoti Nagar.
7. It is further alleged that the case was thoroughly investigated by the police and an untraced report was filed. The complaint had immediately intimated to the insurance company/OP about the theft thereafter opposite party/ appointed a surveyor Sh. R.V Singh to investigate the case. The investigator confirmed the theft of vehicle and he also confirmed that vehicle was not recovered.
8. It is also alleged that the Complainant had given all documents required to OP and surveyor i.e. original FIR, untrace Report, copy of the chargesheet U/s 173 Cr. P.C
9. It is also stated that in the month of June the Complainant was shocked to receive a letter from the opposite party that his claim has been repudiated. Complainant immediately filled a RTI application with the insurance company. Complainant also approached the ombudsmen but no fruitful purpose was served. It is alleged the repudiation is highly illegal, unjustified and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The insurance company deliberately and willfully withheld the legitimate amount of the Complainant.
10. It is further alleged that the Complainant suffered unbearable mental and physical torture, harassment and mental agony due to poor services rather no service of the OP and OP is liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
11. It is prayed that the respondent/OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 17,50,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Fifty Thousand) along with litigation expenses and compensation for causing mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainant due to the gross negligence and deficiency in service by the respondent.
12. OP contested that case, reply was filed alleging that the complaint has been filed without any cause of action and hence the same was liable to be dismissed. It was also stated that the OP-1 company was not liable to pay any claim as it did not falls under the terms and condition of the policy issued by the OP. The complaint is nothing but only to extort public money.
13. It was also stated that the claim was repudiated under the terms and conditions No. 5 of the policy and the repudiation letter dated 15/06/2017, had been sent to the complainant. 
14. It was also alleged that the complainant purchased a Package Policy bearing no. 0417003115P106109160 for the period of 27/08/2015 to 26/08/2016 against his vehicle bearing no. UP-81-BT-3602. It was alleged that the vehicle was stolen on intervening night 08-09/09/2016 when it was left unattended/ parked by the driver employed by the insured. The vehicle was parked 1.25 KM away from the residence of insured and there was no helper or watchman for the safety of the vehicle, which is a violation of policy condition no. 5. It was also stated that Complainant failed to take reasonable care and thus committed a breach of condition no. 5 of the policy terms and conditions, as under:-
15.  
15. It was further alleged the insured had not submitted the required documents for processing the claim like copy or purchase bill (as vehicle was purchased second hand by the insured), Original RC, Permit, Fitness, Log book for use in UP /Delhi NCR (as vehicle was registered in UP), Receipt of MCD Green tax/toll tax etc. It was also alleged that Complainant did not inform the insurance company immediately about the loss. Alleged loss was intimated to the company on 17/08/2016 whereas the date of loss/ theft was 8-9/08/2016. The intimation was given after a gap of almost 8 days which was also violation of condition no. 1 of the policy which provides that "Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim." It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
16. The Complainant filed rejoinder reiterating therein the averments made in the Complaint and denying all the allegations made in the Written Statement. Parties thereafter filed their evidence by affidavits.
17. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for parties and perused the record.
18. It is to be noted that some of the facts which are admitted are that complainant had taken the policy of the vehicle in question from OP and the theft of the vehicle took place during the continuance of the said policy. The theft of vehicle was also not denied neither the claim was repudiated on the ground that theft was not genuine
19. Ld. Counsel for Complainant contended that the claim was repudiated arbitrarily Ld. Counsel for OP however submitted that insurance company had repudiated the claim under the terms and condition No. 5 of the Policy, as insured failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage as it was left unattended parked 1.25 KM from the house of complainant and no watchman or helper was present for safety of the vehicle. Ld. Counsel for the OP also contended that repudiation was justified and the complaint be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for the Complainant however contended that surveyor appointed by OP confirmed the theft and that vehicle was not recovered. The short question for consideration is whether the owner of vehicle had failed to safeguard the vehicle from any loss or damage. It is the case of Complainant that vehicle was stolen on the intervening night of 9/9/08/2016 by unknown person and FIR was got registered on 09.08.2016. Complainant in his evidence stated that he had taken all safeguards at the time of parking. The only question is thereafter whether the driver of bus had taken safeguards against loss and damage or not. The statement of driver made to the police was not filed by complainant. Complainant was thus not primafacie proved that driver had taken safeguard. We are of the view that driver failed to take safeguards at the time of parking of the bus, against theft/loss or damage.
20. Thus as it is a case of violation of condition 5 of the policy , the claim is to be settled on non-standard basis. In this regard the Hon’ble National Commission held in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandewal 2008(7) Scale 351 that ‘even assuming there was breach of a condition of policy. Insurance company ought to have settled the claim on no-standard basis’.
21. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view the repudiation of the total claim of the complaint was unjustified, the delay in informing the OP was only of 8 days. In the said facts and circumstances, we are of the view that OP is liable to pay 75% of the claim of claimant on non-standard basis with interest @ 6.5%% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order failing which OP will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realization.

The order be uploaded on the website of the Commission.

Copy of order will provided/sent to all parties free of cost.

File be consigned to record room with a copy of the order.

 

 

(POONAM CHAUDHRY)

President

 

 

 

                                        (BARIQ AHMAD)                                                       (ADARSH NAIN) 

                                                    Member                                                                 Member