Haryana

Ambala

CC/282/2017

Manish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio Gen Insurance Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mewa Ram

07 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 282 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 03.08.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 07.06.2018

 

 

Manish Kumar son of Shri Raj Kumar, resident of House No.41, Sonia Colony, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       IFFCO TOKIO, General Insurance Company Limited, Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt-133001

2.       IFFOC TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office IFFCO Sadan c-1, District Centre Saket, New Delhi- 110017.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.             

                    

 

 

Present:       Sh. Mew Ram, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Mohinder Bindal, counsel for the Ops.

 

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had insured the vehicle bearing no.HR-01-AF0859, Make TVS APACHE RTR 160 YLW, vide Policy bearing no. 94886091. The insured motorcycle has been stolen on dated 03.07.2016 and to this effect, the complainant  has lodged FIR bearing no.0620, dated 29.07.2016, under Section 379 IPC, Police Station, Camp Palwal, District Palwal and to this effect their branch office was also duly informed regarding the above said stolen motorcycle. The complainant lodged the complaint before the police of Police Station, Palwal immediately on dated 03.07.2016 and the police  investigated the matter and after investigation of the case, the police lodged the FIR on 29.07.2016 and hence, there is no delay for lodging the FIR. The Police searched the stolen motorcycle after registration of the FIR, but the same was not found any where till dated. Now, the police  of Police Station, Camp Palwal on 15.09.2016 has  submitted the untraced report. The  complainant  further stated that  he is entitled to claim the compensation of the stolen motorcycle as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant received a letter, dated 20.04.2017, manual complaint no.12099 given by the OP and reply of the above said letter. The complainant has suffered a mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss due to the above said illegal act on the part of Ops. He has sent a legal notice to the OPs through his counsel on 06.04.2017 but the Ops neither make the payment of the genuine claim of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and tendered separate written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false & frivolous, no cause of action, not come present with clean hands and no jurisdiction. On merits, learned counsel for the OPs has been submitted that the complainant himself who is responsible for the none-payment of his claim. As a matter of fact that reported clam no.366877 of the complainant on receipt of the intimation on 07.07.2016 was duly entertained in due course without going into the aspect of its maintainability due to late intimation to the OP inspite of the fact that the present claim was out rightly liable to be discarded due to late intimation of claim by the insured ie. After 4 days of the alleged loss to the insurance company against law and in violation of the Condition no.1 of the Insurance policy but even than the said claim was entertained without discrimination. One investigator namely Bhola & Associates was appointed to investigate the matter and to give his fact finding report about the loss and other factors related to this case who submitted his report dated 16.02.2017 after being failed to get any substantial evidence about reporting the theft in question to the police on the same day of theft. After going through the papers submitted by the insured and after scutinizing and elaborating the whole facts, it was also found that the complainant intimated the loss in question to police on 29.07.2016 as per FIR lodged by the complainant vide FIR no.620 dated 29.07.2016 meaning thereby that the complainant informed the police after delay of 26 days of alleged theft. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.               To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as annexure C-1 to C-11 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OPs tendered affidavits as Annexure R/X & Annexure R/Y with documents as Annexure R-1 to R-10 and  closed their evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly, the vehicle in question was got insured for amounting Rs.40,000/- with the OP on the premium of Rs. 1,079/- having validity w.e.f. 08.11.2015 to 07.11.2016 as per Annexure C-4. The plea of the complainant that the vehicle in question has been stolen by unknown person on 03.07.2016 while the complainant had kept his aforesaid motor cycle parked in the courtyard of his house when he saw his motor cycle was missed but motor cycle in question could not be traced. In this regard, he moved an application on the same day i.e. 03.07.2016 as per Annexure C-5 to the Police Station Camp Palwal and same was duly received by the Police Station Camp Palwal on 03.07.2016 But Police got registered the FIR on 29.07.2016 bearing no.620 U/s 379 IPC against unknown person. Police has investigated the matter and submitted the untraced report to the learned Illaqua Magistrate, Palwal as per Annexure C-7.

On the other hand, the OP has got investigated the matter through their surveyor and surveyor has submitted the report as per Annexure R-7 and  investigator has found that FIR is  genuine one  and has not denied the motor cycle in question has not been stolen. But surveyor has mentioned  in his report that no explanation regarding delay in lodging the FIR and insured has also not provided with PCR Call confirmation.  The OP has closed the claim of the complainant vide Annexure R-1 on the ground that they are is receipt of copy of police intimation which states that intimation for theft was given to police on 03.07.2016, while date of intimation to police as per FIR is 27.07.2016 and complainant has not provided the copy of the daily diary report (DDR) from concerned police station or 100 no. call detail.

6.                The Ops admitted that the vehicle in question had not been traced out till date & their only contention is that the complainant had not explained the reason of lodging the delay in FIR nor has produced any documents regarding he has intimated to the police on the same day except the application moved to the police as per Annexure C-5 but the police has not lodged any DDR which is mandatory under the law. The OP has also taken the plea in the written statement that the complainant has intimated to the OPs regarding theft of the vehicle in question on 07.07.2016 after a delay of more than 4 days but due to delay intimation to the company just to keep them away from the proper investigation into alleged theft of vehicle and make an Endeavour to recover the same but the above said plea is not sustainable because OP has not repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of late intimation.

7.                 It is not disputed the complainant has lodged the FIR after period of 24 days. Usually, it has been seen that the police did not take the immediate action regarding the cases of the theft. In the present case, the complainant has also moved an application to the police station regarding the theft of the vehicle on the same day i.e. 03.07.2018 which was duly received by the Police Station Camp Palwal. After the receiving the application from the complainant police is duty bound to lodge the DDR firstly but police has not lodge the DDR. There is not fault on the part of the complainant.  In the present case, the insurance company has closed the claim of the complainant on the ground not providing the daily diary report and 100 no. call detail. However, the investigator of the company has not denied the factum of the stolen of the vehicle, therefore this forum cannot decline the claim of the complainant. In the event of any accidental loss or damage to the insured vehicle, it was contractual obligation of the insured complainant to immediately inform insurance company.

8.                Keeping in view of the above discussion we come to this conclusion that theft has been occurred during the insured period of the policy as per Annexure C-4. Hence, the complainant is entitled the insured value of the vehicle in question Rs. 40,000/- as per policy. OP has wrongly closed the claim of the complainant on the ground that not providing the daily diary report and 100 no. call detail. Whenever, the company has not denied the factum of the stolen of the vehicle. Accordingly, the present complaint is deserves to be acceptance and same is hereby allowed with cost Rs. 3,000/- and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To pay the insured amount Rs. 40,000/- as per Annexure C-4 to the complainant with interest @9% from the date of complaint till its realization.

(ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- on account of litigation charge, mental harassment & agony along with cost of litigation.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :07.06.2018                         

 

                                                                                      

 

 

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)            (D.N. ARORA)

              Member                                            President