Delhi

East Delhi

CC/234/2018

ROOP KISHORE - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNIVERSAL SOMPO GIC. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.234/2018

 

	SH. ROOP KISHORE S/O SH. PHOOL SINGH R/O A-1291, DURGA MARG, MANDAWALI FAZALPUR, DELHI-110092.	….Complainant
VERSUS
	UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,   THROUGH  ITS REGIONAL MANAGER/ZONAL MANAGER,   ADDRESSED AT; SOULSTICE BUILDING, PLOT NO. 52, GROUND FLOOR, SECTOR 44, GURGAON-122003, HARYANA, INDIA.	……OP

 

Date of Institution: 30.07.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 10.10.2022

Judgment Passed on: 17.10.2022

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

1. The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of OP in repudiating the claim of the Complainant w.r.t theft of his vehicle e-Rikshaw Chassis Number and Engine Number M22YCEDD16G002882 and YCDM7346. 
2. Brief facts as stated in complaint, are that the Complainant purchased an e-Rikshaw from M/s Y.C. Electric Vehicles for Rs.1,01,892/- on 25.07.2016.  He got his e-Rikshaw insured from OP1 vide Policy No. 2314/56393991/00/000 for a period of one year from 01.08.2016 to 31.07.2017. 
3. His e-Rikshaw was stolen on 10.07.2017 within the area of Police Station, Mandawali.  FIR was lodged on 13.07.2017. 
4. Intimation of theft was given to OP who sent a representative. The said representative collected the documents and two keys of the e-Rikshaw in question. It is submitted that the representative of OP1 informed the Complainant that he has to wait for the final untraced report from the concerned authorities.  He was also assured that he would receive the claim after sending the final untraced report. 
5. Thereafter, a final order was passed by Hon’ble Court of Shri Amit Arora, Ld. ACMM-01, East District, Karkardooma Court on 03.02.2018.  The copy of this Order was sent to OP.
6. The Complainant’s claim was rejected by OP vide repudiation letter dated 23.03.2018 on the ground of violation of policy condition No. 5. 
7. Complainant alleges that he has suffered mental agony because of the conduct of the respondent.  Complainant prays for claim amount worth Rs.1,01,892/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., Rs.2,00,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony along with cost of proceedings.
8. The Complainant has made Insurance Co. as well as M/s Y.C. Electronic Vehicle, the seller, as opposite parties in the complaint. However, M/s Y.C. Electronic Vehicle OP2 was deleted vide order dated 31.05.2019. Relevant portion is reproduced as under:
9.  “Vakalatnama filed on behalf of OP1. Copy of the Complainant be given to OP1. Notice to OP2 not received back. Counsel of the Complainant states that he wants to drop OP2. On his request, OP2 stands to be deleted from array of the parties”. Therefore the OP1 is the only party as shown in memo of parties cause title. Accordingly there is only one OP in this case title.
10. OP1 in its reply has taken a preliminary objection on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. OP submits that the claim was rightfully closed because there was a delay in registration of FIR. The theft occurred between 22:30 and 05:30 on 10.07.2017, but the FIR was registered on 13.07.2017. As there is no explanation with regard to delay in lodging of FIR, OP imputes that the Complainant has ulterior motive to get wrong compensation. Further, the claim has also been repudiated, on this ground that only one original key of the vehicle was submitted. It is alleged that Complainant has stated that second original key of the vehicle was lost at his home. The Complainant has not replaced the lock set of the vehicle nor intimated to the Police authority about loss of key, thus violating the condition 5 of the policy. The Complainant has not taken proper steps to safeguard the insured vehicle. It is also stated that the story in the FIR filed by complainant is too flimsy. The issuance of policy was/is subject to terms and conditions which were not adhered to by the complainant. OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.
11. The Complainant in his evidence by way of affidavit has filed the following documents:

1. Copy of legal notice along with postal receipt is exhibited as CW-1/1.
2. Copy of retail invoice is exhibited as CW-1/2.
3. Copy of untraced report is exhibited as CW-1/3.
4. Copy of FIR is exhibited as CW-1/4.
5. Copy of insurance policy is exhibited as CW-1/5.
6. Copy of ID card of the deponent is exhibited as CW-1/6.

12. . As OP did not file the evidence after repeated opportunities and its right to file evidence was closed vide order dated 17.02.2022.
13. The Commission has considered the arguments advanced by both parties and the material on record.  It is undisputed that Complainant has purchased an e-Rikshaw from M/s Y.C. Electric Vehicles for Rs.1,01,892/- and an Insurance Policy of the said Vehicle from OP. The policy annexed by both the parties demonstrate that coverage is for a period of one year from 01.08.2016 to 31.07.2017 with IDV value of Rs.96,797/-. It is also undisputed that the said vehicle was stolen on 10.07.2017.  FIR was lodged on 13.07.2017.  FIR states that the vehicle was stolen from A-1291, Durga Marg, Gali No. 2, Mandawali, Fazalpur, Delhi. Final untraced Order for the said vehicle was passed by the ACMM Court on 03.02.2018. 
14. The Complainant has filed a claim with OP which was rejected vide letter dated 23.03.2018.  The relevant portion is reproduced as under:

“Upon scrutiny of the documents and as per your statement, it is noted that you have submitted only 1 original key of the vehicle. As stated by you, the other original key of the vehicle was lost at your home long ago. However, you have neither got the lockset of the vehicle replaced not intimated the police authority about the loss of key. Thus nor taking the proper steps to safeguard the insured vehicle is a violation of policy condition no. 5 regarding "reasonable care" which is reproduced as under:

"5. The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured...

We sincerely regret that we are unable to consider this claim and the claim is being repudiated due to violation of Policy Condition no. 5.”

15. OP has also in its reply has objected to a delay of few days in lodging of FIR, though no mention has been made in the repudiation letter.
16. In Om Parkash V/s Reliance General Insurance (2017) 9 SCC 724, it has been held that delay in information cannot be any ground for repudiating the claim as CPA is a beneficial legislation that deserve liberal construction. Police has lodged the FIR and has given final report after the vehicle was not traced, and the surveyor/investigator appointed by insurance company have found that the vehicle in fact was stolen. In the present matter, the delay in FIR was mere three days, and this ground was not even taken by the OP in the repudiation letter. OP is conveniently silent about the date of intimation to the insurance company. The above mentioned repudiation letter shows that surveyor/investigator was appointed on 12.7.2017 i.e. even before filing of FIR which interalia means that the Insurance Company has already been informed? OP has not filed the investigation/surveyor report which would have clarified the date of intimation.
17. Although OP has stated that only one original key was handed over to its representative, it has not adduced any proof regarding the same. It has neither filed any evidence by way of affidavit, nor the affidavit of representative who has collected ‘one’ key. Even, the statement of the complainant that one key has been lost at his home has not been placed on the record. Further to prove these facts OP has not filed its evidence. The pleadings howsoever strong cannot take place of tangible proof. Hence, the Complainant’s contentions that both keys have been submitted to OP remain unrebutted.
18. As far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the theft of the vehicle took place in Mandawali, The cause of action took place in Mandawali which falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
19. Hence, we hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it to pay the following:

1. To pay Rs.96,797/- ( i.e. insured value) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the claim till realisation. 
2. We also award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges. 

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 17.10.2022

 

 

 

(Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President