IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 12.09.2023 Date of Hearing: 25.03.2025 Date of Decision: 19.08.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. 469/2023 IN THE MATTER OF MR. RAJ KUMAR, S/O MR. GIR RAJ PARSAD, R/O A-398-399, RAGHUBIR NAGAR, DELHI–110027.

(Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., B.O. AT NEAR BUS STAND, NEAR SADAR POLICE STATION, BAHADURGARH, HARYANA.

(Through: Mr. Vikas Shokeen, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: None for the Appellant.

Mr. Amit Yadav proxy counsel for Mr. Vikas Shokeen, counsel for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“1. That the complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection Act, 1986. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

a. The complainant got his car vide regn no. DL-20Z-

8541 insured comprehensively vide policy no. 35380231130100005184 for Rs.60,000/- for the period

29/08/2013 to 28/08/2014 from OP1 through agent OP2. b. On 06/04/2014, car was stolen from complainant house. Immediately incident of theft was reported to the PS Rajouri Garden, Delhi and FIR No. 404 dated 07/04/2014 was registered.

c. Intimation of theft was instantly reported to the OPs through agent and one person namely Devender contacted the complainant and collected all the papers from complainant's residence.

d. Police have also reported untrace report on

01/06/2014. But later on when the claim was filed, OP1 rejected the claim vide rejecting letter dated 03/05/2015 stating that there was delay in intimation to OP.

e. legal notice was also serve but there was no positive response. The Complainant has alleged that the rejection of the claim is uncalled for and this is deficiency in service and therefore the present complaint wherein the complainant has prayed for:

- Direct the OP to pay the claim as per IDV amounting to Rs 60,000/- with compensation of Rs 20,000/- for harassment and mental torture and cost of litigation and miscellaneous expenses of Rs.5000.

2. After hearing the arguments on admission, the present complaint was admitted and accordingly notice was issued to the OP on 3/11/2015 returnable on 15/01/2016 AR of Op No.2 appeared and marked his presence. None appeared on behalf of OP No.1 despite service hence Op no.1 was proceeded ex-parte. Accordingly, Op No.2 filed their written statement on 09/03/2016 urging that her role was limited to the extent of advising the complainant to approach police authorities and insurance company when he informed her about the theft of insured vehicle and is not directly or indirectly involved in theft claim etc. In the meantime Op no.1 also approached state commission for setting aside ex- parte order and accordingly Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 03/05/2016 set aside the exparte order dated 15.01.2016 and directed OP No.1 to file reply subject to cost of Rs 1500/-. Hence OP No.1 filed reply on 6/5/2016 taking following preliminary objections:-

a. The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

b. The complaint of complainant is liable to be rejected as the OP has acted as per policy conditions Claim of complainant was repudiated as per policy conditions.

c. The complainant has failed to intimate OP in terms of policy and as such has violated policy conditions. As there is violation of the terms and condition of the policy as alleged theft took place on 06/04/2014 whereas intimation about theft was given to insurance company after delay of 26 days on 2/05/2014. Thus there is inordinate delay in intimation to OP. On account of delayed intimation, the OP was deprived of its legitimate right to get an enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavor