DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.358/2014

Rakesh Chugh

S/o Late Shri R.S. Chugh

R/o 1898-C/19, Second Floor

Govindpuri Extension

Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.                                        .…Complainant

                                                 VERSUS

M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Manager

Branch office No.311502

Having its Branch At:

22, 2^nd Floor, Mother House

Yusuf Sarai, Commercial Complex

Neart Metro Station

Green Park, New Delhi-110049.                                 ….Opposite Party

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Present:    Adv. Mukesh Birla alongwith Adv. Tauheed Khan for complainant.

                None for OP.

ORDER

Date of Institution:10.09.2014

Date of Order       : 19.12.2024

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking direction to OP to release the insurance claim/expense incurred on repairing of the motorcycle i.e. Rs.20,786/-; direction to OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and trauma; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. OP is New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

1. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a motorcycle bearing No. DL-3SAY-0432 Bajaj Pulsar vide sale letter from its erstwhile registered owner Sh.Devo Jyoti Ghoshal.  Copy of sale letter is annexed as annexure-A.

2. It is stated that insured the vehicle bearing No. DL-3SAY-0432 Bajaj Pulsar vide policy No.31150231120100007753 for a period of one year from 07.02.2013 to 06.02.2014 in the name of the complainant.  Copy of insurance policy is annexed as annexure-B.

3. It is further stated that at the time of getting insurance from the OP, complainant had placed registration certificate of the vehicle which was registered in the name of Devo Jyoti Ghoshal along with his driving licence, sale letter, residence proof and all other necessary documents as required by authorised person of the OP.

4. It is stated that the motorcycle of the complainant was stolen on intervening night of 01.08.2013 which was parked in front of his house. He immediately gave a call to 100 number and subsequently FIR was got registered at Police Station Kalkaji vide No.324/2013 dated 01.08.2013 and an information was duly given to the office of OP by the complainant on the very same day.  Copy of FIR No.324/2013 dated 01.08.2013 is annexed as annexed as   annexure-C.

5. It is further stated that the motorcycle was recovered in abandoned condition by the police officials of PS Kalkaji and it was found that the motorcycle was badly damaged as the front rim along with tyre and tube, seat cover, petrol tank, lights, side cover etc. were found to be stolen, the motorcycle was total loss.

6. It is stated by the complainant OP was informed about the status of the motorcycle and the surveyor from the office of OP visited the police station and inspected the motorcycle and after inspection, asked the complainant to get the motorcycle released from court and asked him to leave the motorcycle in an authorised service centre for assessment of the loss.  The complainant was also asked to get untraced report collected and he was asked to proceed with the process to get the insurance claim.

7. It is stated that the complainant after getting released the vehicle from the court, left the motorcycle to authorised service centre i.e. M/s Dewan Auto, 1521, Shambhu Dayal Bagh, Okhla Phase-III, New Delhi and an estimated loss was computed.  The OP through its authorised person assured the complainant that would get the insurance claim in respect of the loss so caused to the motorcycle and the complainant was again asked to get the motorcycle repaired.

8. Complainant stated that the motorcycle was repaired by M/s Dewan Auto and an invoice was raised by M/s Dewan Auto, totalling Rs.20,786/- on 22.11.2013.  When the bill/invoice was given to the OP by the complainant, he was asked to make the payment of his own with the assurance that he would get the entire claim from the insurance company/OP.  The complainant was forced to make the payment with the same assurance and ultimately the complainant made the payment as directed by the OP, as he was being pressurised by M/s Dewan Auto to make the payment.  Copy of invoice by which payment was made is annexed as annexure-D.

9. The complainant was informed from the office of OP telephonically on 25.11.2013 that his claim cannot be accepted as he was not the registered owner of the vehicle and the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant in arbitrarily and malafide manner. The complainant has further stated that all the documents at the time of issuance of insurance policy of the vehicle and if there was any objection for registered owner that should been raised at the time of inception of the insurance policy not at later stage when claim has been lodged.

10. Complainant has further stated that OP has caused mental agony and trauma to the complainant, for which the OP is liable to pay as compensation a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. The OP is also liable to pay as litigation expenses a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

11. OP, in its reply stated that the contract of insurance is a contract of uberrima fides in nature i.e. the contract of utmost good faith.  It is stated that the complainant was not registered owner of the subject motorcycle bearing No.DL-3S AY-0432 Bajaj Pulsar at the time on 07.02.2013 when the insurance policy with respect to the aforesaid vehicle was taken in his name.

12. It is stated by OP that complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and deserved to be dismissed at the threshold with exemplary cost.  It is stated that Form-29 and 30 enclosed with the complaint does not bear the date and signature of the authentic person and the said documents are forged and fabricated and even otherwise are of no relevance until they have been submitted to the proper registering Authority or have been accepted by them.

13. It is stated that the complainant has not filed or supplied any copy of ‘Sale Letter’.  It is submitted that the documents pertaining to Form 29 & 30 are fake and forged and does not bear the date and signature of the authentic person/purported seller. It is denied that subject vehicle after being recovered was in total loss condition.

14. It is absolutely denied by OP that any assurance for the payments/reimbursement towards the repair cost of subject vehicle on behalf of the agent or official of the insurance company was made to the complainant in any manner.  It is further submitted that the liability of the insurance company arises as per the terms and conditions set out in the contract of insurance and cannot be fastened upon it otherwise.

15. It is stated that it is submitted that it was found that the complainant was not the registered owner and did not have any ‘insurable interest’ at the time of taking the policy.  Even otherwise the complainant is liable for misrepresenting the facts and information and therefore was found not entitled to claim.

16. Complainant in his rejoinder, has mostly denied the allegations and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.  It is vehemently denied that the complainant procured policy from the office of the insurance company by suppressing any material information.  It is again denied that the complainant misrepresented facts.  At the time of taking the policy from the OP ,copy of sale letter as demanded by the OP was provided  and thus this fact was in the knowledge of the OP.  OP accepted the documents and issued the insurance policy in the name of the complainant thus the policy is not null.

17. It is further stated by the complainant that the insurance policy has been issued in the name of the complainant. It is again denied that the documents annexed with the complaint are forged and fabricated or that having no relevance.

18. Complainant’s evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments are placed on record.  OP’s right to file evidence is closed vide order dated 05.07.2018.

19. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record.  It is seen that the complainant have placed on record Form 29 & 30 which are the seller’s details of the vehicle in question to the complainant however, there is no office endorsement in both these documents.  A policy schedule cum certificate of insurance has been placed on record by the complainant wherein the policy regarding the vehicle in question was issued to the complainant and which was valid from 07.02.2013 to 06.02.2014 for the vehicle in question. Complainant has also placed on record FIR and invoice of Dewan Auto raised for repair for a sum of Rs.20,786/-.

It is also seen that OP has not placed any document on record along with their reply and their right to file evidence was closed.  So the averments of the OP that Form 29 & 30 filed by the complainant are forged are without any substance/basis.  There is no denial that after issuance of policy by OP was duty bound to pay for the repair of the vehicle in question once the policy was validly issued to the complainant.  It is also seen that the surveyor of the OP visited the Police station and advised the complainant to get the vehicle released and repaired however the claim was not passed by the OP.

Therefore to this extent the OP is found deficient in its services and is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,786/- to the complainant along with from 22.11.2013 i.e. the date of the invoice till date with interest @6% per annum within three months from the date of pronouncement of the order failing which OP would be liable to pay interest @8% till realisation.  OP is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of harassment cost to the complainant.

  Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.