CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/135/21

          Date of Institution:-    07.12.2021

          Order Reserved on:- 25.10.2025

                        Date of Decision:-      09.12.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Raj Pal

S/o Late Sh. Mam Chand

R/o Vill.Rewali

District & P. O. Sonipat

Haryana

Also R/o

462, Guru Aptts.Plo No.-2,

Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi                                .….. Complainant

VERSUS

National Insurance Company Limited

Through Its Director

124, Level 4, JevanBharti Building

Tower 2, Janpath Road,

Connaught Place, Delhi – 110001

Alto AtUttam Nagar

Direct Agents Branch

First Floor, Plot No.5

Near Metro Pillar No.682,

Main Najafgarh Road,

Uttam Nagar,New Delhi –110059.…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Act) for the recovery and damages with the allegations thatcomplainant is the owner of carbearing reg. no.HR10S2049 which was duly insured with OP vide policy no.360304311810000147 valid from 19.04.2018-18.04.2019. On 03.04.2019 at 7.05PM, the car was stolen from main road, Sector-19, Village Pochanpur, Dwarka upon which PCR at no.100 was called and e-FIR no.DWK.DS-23-000205/19 under section 379 IPC, PS, Sector-23,Dwarka was lodged. On 05.04.2019, OP was informed through email. The Police have filed untraced report which was accepted by the court concerned on 29.07.2019. On 01.11.2011, he wrote a letter to OP to settle the claim in terms of policy but claim was not proceeded.Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP has filed reply with the averments that complainant has not deliberately filed the mail dated 05.04.2019 as mail was never sent to OP. The complaint is premature as claim was not repudiated by the OP.The complainant has not filed final Police report under section 173 CRPC. It is denied that letter dated 01.11.2019 was written by complainant to OP. The seal on the letter dated 01.11.2019 could not be verified as it lacks any detail of any official of the OP. The said seal is manufactured one as same is not legible. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.

3. The complainant did not file the rejoinder.

4. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

5. The complainant has examined two witnesses in support of his case. He has filed his own affidavit in evidence (CW1) wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Ex.CW1 to C4.
6. The complainant has also filed the affidavit of Sh. RajeshwarDagar (CW2) in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint.

7. The OP has filed the affidavit of Ms. KarishmaNegi, in evidence wherein she has corroborated the version of written statement.

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant as time was given to the OP to address the arguments but OP did not turn up to address the arguments.

9. The perusal on the entire material on the record shows that complainant is the owner of car in question which is duly insured with OP. The factum of insurance is nowhere denied by OP. The car was stolen upon which e-FIR no.DWK.DS-23-000205/19 under section 379 IPC, PS Sector-23,Dwarka was lodged as apparent from Ex.C3 though exhibit is not on the document. The Police have filed untraced report which was accepted by the court as apparent from the document attached at page no.21 of the complaint. The complainant has allegedly informed the OP on 05.4.2019 by mail and thereafter handwritten letter annexed at page no.22 of the complaint shown as Ex.C4 in the affidavit is given at Uttam Nagar Branch of the OP.

10. The OP has raised the issue that complainant has never informed the OP that is why copy of mail dated 05.04.2019 is not placed on record and moreover letter dated 01.11.2019is manufactured one as details of the official receiving the same is missing.

11. It is clear from the record that theft of the car is not disputed by the OP. The Police have filed untraced report which is annexed with the complaint so the plea of the OP that final report under section 173 is not annexed is without any merit.

12. A perusal of the letter dated 01.11.2019shows that the letter was delivered at Uttam Nagar Branch of the OP. There is no material from OP that no branch is situated at Uttam Nagar. The OP should have verified from Uttam Nagar Branch whether any such letter has been received or not. The OP has not filed any report from the Uttam Nagar Branch that no such letter was received on 01.11.2019.Mere bald averment is not enough. The letter does not bear the signature of any official as it only bears the official seal of the branch of OP. There is nothing on the record from the side of OP that this letter is manufactured one except bald averment in the reply to the complaint.

13. To our mind, the letter dated 01.11.2019 was received in the Uttam Nagar Branch of the OP. The branch officer could have either dealt with the letter or could have transferred it to the concerned branch dealing with claims under intimation to the complainant which was not done. The OP could have appointed the surveyor on the basis of this letter but nothing was done after receipt of this letter.

14. The complainant has filed the complaint on 24.02.2021 and OP has put the appearance on 14.03.2022. The OP could have initiated action after the receipt of copy of the complaint and annexures including letter dated 01.11.2019. The OP did not act even thereafter to settle the claim except to take the bald plea that copy of email was not supplied or that letter was not received. The OP was in a denial mode instead of settling the claim.

15. The complainant has immediately informed the Police on the theft of the car and thereafter allegedly informed the OP through email dated 05.04.2019. The copy of mail is not on record through intimation to the OP vide letter dated 01.11.2019 is on record. The inaction on the part of OP in initiating action on the basis of letter dated 01.11.2019 or even after receiving the complaint with annexurestantamounts to deficiency in service in settling the claim of the complainant.

16. To our view, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP and accordingly the complaint is allowed. The car was insured for a sum of Rs.5 lakh. The OP shall pay a sum of Rs.5 lakh to the complainant along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.The complainant has undergone mental agony and harassment and forced to go for litigation so on this score the complainant is entitled for a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000. The OP is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @6% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment, agony and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 09.12.2024.