Present: None for the appellant

Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Chandna, Counsel for the Respondent

(Mobile: 7988788815) appeared through VC

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, (New Delhi District), M-Block, 1st Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002, record are as under:

“1. The present complaint has been filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act) against Opposite Parties (in short OP) alleging deficiency of services against OP-1. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. DL-1CQ-2400 (SKODA LAURA) was insured with the OP vide policy bearing No.0402813117P109209077 27.09.2018. w.e.f. 28.09.2017 to27.09.2018.

2. It is alleged that on 18.02.2018, the complainant insured vehicle got stolen from Gandhi Nagar, Pushta Shyam Block, Gandhi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. The complainant immediately registered the e- FIR bearing no. 005437 dated 18.02.2018 with the crime branch.

3. It is alleged that the complainant immediately lodged the claim of theft with the OP-1 and the factum of loss was duly investigated by the police as well as the investigator Sh. Balbir Singh Bahel (Investigator) D-37, Old Gupta Colony, Near Vijay nagar, Delhi-110009 and subsequently appointed another investigator M/s X – cops investigation Allied Services A-7, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, new Delhi-110001.

4. It is further alleged by the complainant that vide letter dated 15.05.2015 and whatsupp message dated 23.05.2018, the first investigator demanded some document from complainant such as the purchase receipt / Cash receipt, proof of payment, copy of previous policies and ITRs. The complainant replied the Insurance co. as well as its surveyor/investigator vide letters dated 25.05.2018, 11.06.2018 and 23.07.2018.

5. It is alleged by the complainant that despite completion of entire formalities OP Insurance Co. did not settle the genuine claim and repudiated vide letter dated 08.04.2019 on the ground of false documents and mis-representation of facts. This act of OP Insurance Co. amounts to deficiency in service, hence, this complaint.

6. It is prayed that OP's be directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,51,000/- against. the theft claim of the vehicle including compensation on account of negligence, deficiency in service, harassment and cost of litigation to the complainant.

7. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP-1 & 2, upon which OP-1 entered appearance and whereas OP-2 chose not to appear in the proceeding, despite service as per track report dated 15-01-2019 available on record. OP-2 filed written statement along with two investigation report as well repudiation letter, contesting the case on various grounds inter alia that wherein it denied any deficiency in service on its part, It is further stated that the actual value of the vehicle was 5.5 lakh, but the value of the vehicle have been inflated by the insured with the help of some unknown unscrupulous person including there-inspection agency deployed for the inspection before issuing the policy in question. It is further stated that in its written version given to investigator the complainant had averred that he purchased the vehicle for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, whereas, the complainant produced a purchase receipt of Rs.10 Lakhs. It is further stated that as per the investigation report the insurance claim lodged by the insured is not genuine and insured has made an attempt to cheat the OP on the basis of false documents and representation of the facts. Hence, as per terms and condition of the policy insurer has no liability. It is further prayed that present complaint be dismissed with cost.

8. Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit, We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties.”

2. The D