Haryana

Ambala

CC/84/2019

Baljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO Tokio Gen Inss Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Shubham Dhingra

24 Feb 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

 

                                                                      Complaint case no. :    84 of 2019

                                                          Date of Institution :    19.04.2019

                                                          Date of decision     :    25.02.2022.

 

Baljit Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Village Bharanpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, Age 65 years.

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

 

1. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, 6330, 2^nd Floor, Above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt., through its Branch Manager.
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO Sadan, C1 District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Manager/Authorized Person.

….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.          

                            

Present:       Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                   Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.3,95,800/-, i.e. the amount spent by the claimant for the repair of the vehicle in question alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant.
3. To pay the litigation expenses.

                                    

2.       The brief facts of the case are that complainant is the owner of vehicle Tata-2518 TC bearing registration No.HR-37D-1951 and got it insured with the OPs vide policy No.1-FLG5RJO dated 08.06.2017, valid from 11.06.2017 to 10.06.2018, by paying the due premium. The said policy was a comprehensive policy, covering all risks, damages and theft etc. On 08.08.2017, the said vehicle turned turtle at Shazadpur and damaged badly. Complainant immediately reported the matter to the insurance company and it deputed a Surveyor to assess the loss. The said Surveyor inspected the vehicle and also took the photographs and suggested the complainant to get repaired the said vehicle and submit the bills with the OP-company for reimbursement of the amount spent by him on the repair. On the suggestion of the Surveyor, complainant got repaired the vehicle from M/s Om Parkash Dhiman, Shop No.20, Haryana Motor Market, Ambala City and paid Rs.3,95,800/- to repairer, from his own pocket. To get the claim, complainant submitted all the bills of repair etc. alongwith all other relevant documents and completed all the formalities. However, inspite of repeated visits and requests, OPs did not settle his claim. Complainant served a legal notice dated 25.10.2018, upon the OPs, but of no avail.  By not paying the claim amount, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

3.       Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, suppressed the material facts, cause of action, jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is stated that complainant tried to manipulate the facts, for imposing this false and frivolous complaint just to grab money from the OPs, for which he is not legally entitled. As a matter of fact, on receiving the claim form dated 08.08.2017, about the alleged incident of the overturning of the insured track Tata-2518 bearing registration No. HR37D-1951 alleged to have happened on 08.08.2017, the answering OPs entertained the same, without going into the maintainability aspect of the claim. IRDA approved surveyor, Mr. Rajesh Verma was deputed on the same day to inspect and assess the loss and to give his fact finding report as per terms of the insurance policy and as per norms as envisaged under the insurance byelaws. The said deputed surveyor, visited the place of occurrence and inspected the damaged vehicle, in the presence of the complainant. As observed by the surveyor and told by the complainant, the truck over-turned towards its left side on its own, while unloading, without any external force or impact. Since, the overturning/loss had happened due to malfunctioning, in terms of mechanical failure of the truck and not due to any external impact, so, the same was not covered under the insurance policy taken by the complainant, because coverage under IMT 47 was not taken by the complainant. However, for the sake of calculation of loss, the surveyor assessed the loss without admitting any liability to be dealt with as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy. After scrutinizing and elaborating the whole facts, situation, records and the evidence, the competent authority held the claim of the complainant not admissible. Ops repudiated the claim as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and informed the complainant accordingly. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied by OPs and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint filed by the complainant against them with costs.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

4.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Sameer Gupta, Vice President & authorized signatory, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Chandigarh and affidavit of Er. Ajay Kumar, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, having office at 45, Swaraj Enclave, Kharar as Annexure OP-A and OP-B respectively alongwith documents Annexure OP1 to OP5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case very carefully.

6.           The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that during the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle of the complainant overturned and got badly damaged. The surveyor appointed by the OPs, after inspection suggested the complainant to get repaired the vehicle and submit the bills with the insurance company and it will reimburse the amount, incurred on the repair of the vehicle. Accordingly, complainant submitted all the repair bills and other documents with the insurance company. However the insurance company did not pay him the claim amount.

7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs has submitted that on receiving the information regarding the accident of the truck in question,  Surveyor was deputed to assess the loss. On inspection, the said surveyor observed that the truck in question overturned towards its left side on its own while unloading, without any external force or impact. Since, the overturning/loss had happened due to mechanical failure and not due to external impact. The alleged loss was not covered under the insurance policy as coverage under ‘IMT 47’ was not taken by the complainant.  As per terms and conditions of the policy the OPs are thus not liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him.

8.           From the perusal of copy of the policy schedule, Annexure OP1, it is evident that the vehicle TATA-2518 TC was duly insured with the OPs, for the period from 11.06.2017 to 10.06.2018. In the said policy, there is a column of ‘IMT 47’ In Indian Motor Tariff 47, it is stated that:- the damage due to overturning will be covered only on payment of additional premium of 5% of Insured Declared Value (IDV).  Perusal of said policy reveals that the complainant had paid the basic OD premium of Rs.36,627/-. In the column meant for overturning extensions (IMT 47) 0 (zero) has been mentioned. Meaning thereby no coverage was taken by the complainant regarding the overturning of the vehicle. Since, the vehicle of the complainant was not insured for overturning therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by the him due to overturning of the vehicle in question. In this view of the matter, we hold that the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced on:25.02.2022.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)          (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                             Member                   President

 

 

Present:       Sh. Amit Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                   Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

Announced on: 25.02.2022.

 

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)                      (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member                       President