Haryana

Karnal

98/2011

Anand Chohan S/o Rajbir Chouhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco -Tokio General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ajit Singh

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.98 of 2011

                                                             Date of instt.:04.02.2011

                                                               Date of decision 30.09.2016

 

Anand Chauhan son of Shri Rajbir Chauhan resident of House no.776/14, Shish Mahal, Kot Mohalla, Karnal.

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office situated at Anmol Car Garage, Sector-3, Karnal, through its Manager.

2. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office situated at Iffco Adanci District Center Saket New Delhi, through its Manager.

3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, issuing office Sohan Singh Complex, Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Manager.

 

                                                                                      ………Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

                    Shri A.K.Vohra Advocate for opposite parties.

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he was owner of motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05-R2721 and the same was got insured by him with the opposite parties, vide cover note no.3963749 and policy no.70395096, valid from 19.08.2009 to 18.08.2010. The motorcycle was stolen on 21.08.2009 at about 4 P.M. from District Courts, Karnal. Report regarding the theft was lodged and First Information Report no.557 dated 22.08.2009 was registered in Police Station Civil Lines Karnal. He submitted all the necessary documents alongwith claim form to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.2, vide letter dated 9.12.2010, informed him that the claim was closed as “No Claim”. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, which caused him mental pain, agony and  harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum; that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that the complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed just to harass the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that insurance cover note submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties at the time of insurance was manipulated to avoid pre-inspection of the vehicle, which was clear misrepresentation of fact to secure insurance from the opposite parties based on forged/manipulated document. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated, vide letter dated 9.12.2010.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Rajiv Chaudhary Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to O4 have been tendered.

5.                We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                As per the case of the complainant he got insured his motorcycle bearing registration no.HR-05-R2721 with the opposite parties for period of 19.08.2009 to 18.08.2010 and the said motorcycle was stolen on 21.08.2009 and First Information Report no.557 dated 22.08.2009 was registered regarding the said theft. He lodged claim with the opposite parties, but his claim was repudiated.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties put a great thrust upon the contention that the complainant for avoiding the inspection of the vehicle before issuing cover note, produced insurance policy of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., but during investigation of the claim Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. submitted report that the particulars of the said policy did not match. Production of such forged/manipulated policy by the complainant amounted to clear mis-representation of the fact to secure insurance from the opposite parties, therefore, the contract of insurance was void and the opposite parties were not liable to entertain and claim under the policy, therefore, the claim was rightly closed as ‘No Claim’.

8.                The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, cannot be accepted being devoid of force. The copy of the insurance policy is Ex.C4 and the copy of the cover note is as Ex.C3. It is important to point out that neither in the cover note, nor in the policy it was mentioned by the opposite parties that the complainant had produced the previous policy of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. There is no reference at all regarding any previous policy of the vehicle of the complainant. In such a situation, the question arises as to from where the opposite parties got the previous policy of the motorcycle of the complainant, allegedly issued by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. When there is no record to establish that the complainant had produced such previous policy at the time of getting policy from the opposite parties, the verification of any policy allegedly issued by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. could not arise at all. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the opposite parties have altogether failed to establish that the complainant produced some forged/manipulated policy and mis-represented the facts to the opposite parties for getting his vehicle insured from the opposite parties and avoid inspection of the same before issuance of cover note and the policy. Consequently, letter of the opposite parties dated 9.12.2010 making the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim” amounted to deficiency in service.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- as insured amount to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.  We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. It is further made clear that if the abovesaid amount will not be paid within stipulated period of 30 days, then the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of announcement of this order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 30.09.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member