DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.58/2018
Sh. Krishan Kumar
s/o Sh. Laxmi Narayan
R/o Near Govt. Sr. School, Basai,
Gurugram
….Complainant
Versus
Iffco Tokio Genral Insurance Co. Ltd.
Iffco Sadan C-1 Distt. Centre,
Saket, New Delhi-110017 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 26.02.2018
Date of Order : 06.12.2021
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
Order
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant, in this case states that he had taken an insurance for his vehicle ‘Force SUV’ bearing registration no. HR26 BV 6729 with Policy
No. 99031266 at Page No. 9 of his complaint. The complainant purchased this insurance from the OP Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. of the value of Rs. 800350/- which was valid between 15.07.2016 to 14.07.2017. His car was stolen on 30.4.2017 and a FIR No. 05/2017 was lodged in this regard. It is further stated that against a claim of Rs. 8,00,315 /- of the complainant, a sum of Rs. 7,18,315/- was given to him by the OP Insurance company stating that the complainant did not provide both the original keys of the insured vehicle. The complainant further states that at the time of purchase of the vehicle the second key was not handed over by the previous owner stating that it was lost and therefore the act of the OP is arbitrary and illegal.
In their response, the OP Company have not denied any of these facts and in fact state that the matter was already settled with the complainant. The amount provided to the complainant was accepted by him towards full and final amount therefore, the present complaint is an abuse of process of law. To support their contention the OP has relied on a judgement of the Hon’ble NCDRC in ‘Swastik Petrochem vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. III 2017 CPJ 585 (NC)’ wherein it was stated that ‘insurer cannot be held liable if the insured accepted the consented amount towards full and final settlement of the claim’. What is important is that the discharge voucher cannot be obtained by any kind of pressure or compulsion upon the insured. The OP has stated that they have paid a sum of Rs. 7,18,315/- on 12.01.2018. Complainant has signed a discharge voucher and consent letter on 20.12.2017, these documents have been marked as Ex-OPW-1/1 and 1/2. It is stated that the complaint has filed as an after-thought after three months of accepting the money. The other ground taken by Insurance Company is that there is a delay of 12 days in lodging FIR.
This Commission is of the view that as far as the present case is concerned, there is no evidence of any kind of duress, coercion or compulsion having been applied by the insurer on the complainant for acceptance of the amount offered and subsequently accepted. The complainant accepted the amount offered by the insurer voluntarily as is evident from its subsequent conduct in not lodging any kind of written protest or sign the discharge letter under duress. Therefore, the present case is squarely covered by the above stated judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC in ‘Swastik Petrochem vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. III 2017 CPJ 585 (NC)’. As far as the delay is concerned it has already been put at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.653 of 2020 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 24370 of 2015) decided on 24.01.2020 in ‘Gurshinder Singh vs Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.’ wherein it was held ‘that mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.’
Consequently, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.
Let the copy be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
