IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 13.11.2013 Date of hearing: 02.02.2022 Date of Decision: 11.02.2022 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 1201/2013 IN THE MATTER OF MS. MEENU KAUR W/O SHRI. JAGDEEP SINGH R/O B-208/E GALI NO. 2, MAJLIS PARK, ADARSH NAGAR, DELHI (Through: Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 1001, GROUND FLOOR, ARYA SAMAJ ROAD, NAIWALA KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI -05 ALSO AT:-

101047-B-08, UNIT NO. 402 & 403 ITL TOWER, NETAJI SUBASH PALACE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI - 110034 (Through: N. K Chauhan & Associates)

… Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE SH. RAJAN SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: None for the Parties.

PER: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case necessary for adjudication as per the District Forum record are:

“The complainant is the owner of Tipper (Dumper) No.HR 55G-5830 and got it insured from Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short the company) vide policy No.101047/31/11/016389 valid for the period

02.02.2011 to 01.02.2011.

On 27.02.2011 at about 1.30 AM Shri Jagdeep Singh, husband of the complainant found that the vehicle was not lying parked at the place where it was parked and locked. The matter was reported to the police at phone

100 where it was recorded as DD No.4A.

On 08.03.2011, the police recorded the FIR No.59/2011 at PS Adarsh Nagar. The incident of theft of the insured vehicle was brought to the knowledge of the company at its Customer Care Cell on 28.02.2011.

The complainant made available all the requisite documents to the insurance company. The vehicle has not yet been traced out. The police submitted untrace report as per order of the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi, dated 14.07.2011. The complainant signed the vouchers, indemnity and subrogation letter etc. as required by the company. The claim was repudiated vide letter, dated 05.08.2011, received by the complainant on 11.08.2011. The repudiation amounts deficiency in service. The complainant has claimed the insured amount of Rs. 12,00,000/ alongwith Rs.1,00,000/ as compensation for harassment, pain and mental agony with interest @24%

and also the cost of litigation.”

2. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 30.10.2013, whereby it held as under:

“ The insurance company has placed on the file the policy cover note alongwith terms and conditions of the policy. It is pertinent to note that in the complaint and in the affidavit, the complainant has neither pleaded nor has sworn that she received only policy cover note and not the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant received the copy of the reply to the complaint in which the company mentioned about the terms and conditions of the policy and then she became wiser and stated in rejoinder that terms and conditions were not supplied to her. That wisdom disappeared at the time of filing the evidence on oath. The affidavit of the complainant is absolutely silent and the complainant has not sworn that she was supplied only the policy cover note and that terms and conditions of the policy were neither supplied to her not she was made aware the same. Consequently, the stand taken in the rejoinder cannot be given any importance.

Further, it is admitted case of the complainant that she received the letter of repudiation of the claim wherein the insurance company mentioned that conditions of the policy were violated and that loss of the vehicle was intimated belatedly. The complainant did not reply that letter to dispute that the terms and conditions of the policy were not supplied to her nor she was made aware of the same.

Considering the aforsesaid circumstances we find that there is no merit in the contension of the Ld. Counsel of the complainant that complainant was not supplied with the terms and conditions of the policy or she was not made aware of the same and, as su