Delhi

East Delhi

CC/358/2018

NAVEEN KR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNIVERSAL SOMPOO. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110092

 

C.C. NO. 358/2018

 

 

	Navin Kumar R/o:- B-607, Buland Heights, Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad, UP-201016. Also At E-323, Gali No. 11, Nukul Gali, E-Block, Ashok Nagar, Delhi	….Complainant
Versus
	Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Office No. 612, 6th Floor, Roots Tower, Plot No.-7, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. Also At Regd. & Corp. Office Unit No. 401, 4th Floor, Sangam Complex, Andheri-East Mumbai-400059. Also At Regional/Zonal Office Soulstice Building, Plot No. 52, Ground Floor, Sector-44, Gurgoan-122003.	……OP

 

Date of Institution: 12.11.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 24.04.2023

Judgment Passed on: 28.04.2023

               

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Judgment By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the repudiation of his insurance claim by the OP alleging deficiency of service and claiming insurance claim along with compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation cost with interest.

1. It is the case of the complainant that he has got his Maruti SX4 bearing number DL3CBU-1222, insured with the OP vide insurance policy number 2311/58368063/00/000 for the period of 18.07.2017–17.07.2018. The said vehicle has been purchased second hand by the complainant and he has got only one key from the seller, which was also broken & therefore he got prepared two duplicate keys of car. Complainant submits that he has informed the OP at the time of taking the insurance policy about the loss of the original keys. On 25.05.2018, at about 21:30 Hrs, the complainant had parked his vehicle in front of Cross, River Mall to buy some material and after returning, he did not find his vehicle at the place he had parked his car. He searched the vehicle at near about & enquired from the various people, but he could not trace the same and therefore he lodged an e-FIR on the same day bearing number 017818/18 dated 25.05.2018 u/s 379 IPC. Thereafter, the complainant has informed OP about the said theft and filed a claim which was registered vide claim number CL18023029 along with all relevant documents as per the procedure prescribed for filing the claim. An untraced report dated 30.06.2018 was also filed by the complainant with OP. The complainant submits that on 04.09.2018, the OP has rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has not submitted original keys and only two duplicate keys of the vehicle were given to the OP stating that the original keys were not available with him at the time of theft of the vehicle. Complainant submits that the repudiation of the claim by the OP is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal & the same has caused great harassment, mental pain and agony, and the OP is liable to pay the insured value of Rs.4,90,000/- along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing harassment in mental agony and litigation cost.
2. OP has filed its reply stating that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and therefore the complaint does not lie under CPA, 1986. OP submits that complainant has not come to court with clean hands before this commission and has played a fraud on the OP company while taking the insurance policy by not disclosing the fact that both the original keys of the vehicle were lost. In such a situation, the complainant should have immediately got the lock set of the vehicle changed. OP further submits that the complainant admitted the fact of having lost the original keys and such keys were not available with him, at the time of theft of the vehicle vide his letter dated 09.06.2018 and even before, wherein he has admitted that he has received only one key from the seller and that also got broken after sometime and complainant got two duplicate keys. Thus, it is quite clear that complainant willfully and knowingly concealed the fact and has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. OP further submits that by not taking proper steps to safeguard the insured vehicle is violation of the clause 4 of the policy condition. This act of the complainant clearly establishes that the complainant did not take reasonable care to safeguard the vehicle from potential risk of theft by not having the lock of the vehicle changed. Therefore, the OP has rightly repudiated the claim it being in violation of the policy terms and condition and it is not liable to pay any compensation or interest to the complainant as there is no deficiency in service on its part and hence no complaint lies under the provision of CPA, 1986, and therefore the OP prays for dismissal of the complainant.
3. Complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating the version of his complaint. Both the parties have filed their evidence and documents in support of their case.
4. The complainant has filed copy of the FIR dated 25.05.2018, Ex. CW1/1; insurance policy, Ex. CW1/2; and untraced report, Ex. CW1/3.
5. In support of its case, the OP has filed certified copy of the policy as annexure A; letter dated 09.06.2018 as annexed A1; repudiation letter dated 18.08.2018, as annexure B;
6. The Commission has heard the Ld.  Counsels for the parties and perused the relevant documents on record.
7. The preliminary objection taken by the OP with respect to the territorial jurisdiction is to be dealt first before deciding the matter on merit. The document on record show that the cause of action, i.e. the theft of the vehicle, has arisen within the jurisdiction of this commission, therefore, objection relating to the territorial jurisdiction is bereft of any merit and is therefore, dismissed.
8. The complainant states that his claim was repudiated by OP on 04.09.2018, but has not placed the same on record nor has placed any evidence on record which shows that he has informed OP about the lost keys at the time of taking of the policies.
9. The OP has placed on record letter dated letter dated 09.06.2018 written by the complainant (after theft of the vehicle on 25.07.2018), where in complainant has admitted that he is the second owner of the vehicle and has received only one key from the original owner, which also got broken in 2016 & then he made two computerized key from a local key maker, which are handed over to the OP’s executive. The repudiation letter dated 18.08.2018, placed on record by OP, has also referred one email dated 13.08.2018 of the complainant wherein also it admitted the above stated version, however, the said email has not been placed on record by OP.
10. Considering the admitted case of the complainant this Commission is of the view that complainant has obtained the policy from OP by keeping it in dark about the duplicate keys of the vehicle and moreover, has not changed the lock set of the vehicle thus left vehicle exposed to the potential risk of the theft, and violated the condition 4 of the policy whereby he was required to take reasonable care/steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. The, complainant has failed to establish his case w.r.t. deficiency in service by the OP & also was not been able to keep his vehicle risk free. Therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed.
11. The copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules of CPA 1986.
12. The order be uploaded to website and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
13. The complaint case could not be decided within statutory period due to heavy pendency of the cases.
14. The order contains 06 pages, bearing our signature on all pages.

Pronounced on 28.04.2023.