Haryana

StateCommission

CC/367/2017

JITENDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

ADARSH JAIN

20 Nov 2024

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:06.06.2017

                Date of final hearing: 09.09.2024

                                                Date of pronouncement:20.11.2024

 

Consumer Complaint No.367 of 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

Jitender S/o Shri Bhagiram, R/o House No.1989/2, Village Pali, Tehsil & District Faridabad.

…..Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.2, 1^st Floor, Special HUDA Market, Sector-19, Faridabad, near Amar Tex Room, through its Manager.

2.      M/s IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its MD/Director/Manager.

                   …..Opposite Parties.

CORAM:   Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.

Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

 

Present:-    Mr.Bhavuk Aggarwal, proxy counsel for Mr. Adarsh Jain, counsel, counsel for complainant.

Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, counsel opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

 

PER: S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                    The brief facts giving rise to the present complaint are that the complainant was the owner of heavy commercial vehicle make AMW Motor Limited (Tipper) bearing registration No.HR-38-S-4644 having chassis No.MBYB97700CNA28613, Engine No.21M84090065, purchased  through invoice No.H-2013-0117 on 21.02.2013. Said vehicle was insured with IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited-OP vide insurance policy No.91272913 dated 20.02.2015 valid from 23.02.2015 to 22.02.2016. The insurance cover valued for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and premium amount of Rs.21,007/- has also been paid by the complainant. Complainant employed one Asgar son of Khali, R/o Village Dhauj, Faridabad as permanent driver of said vehicle, who was holding license valid upto 20.08.2016.

2.                On 24.10.2015, the vehicle was being driven by the driver (Asgar) and at about 7:00 A.M. they reached village Dhauj Bajri and vehicle was parked outside the village so as to go to the house of Sanjay, a friend of complainant to receive some amount. After some time, on reaching the vehicle, it was found missing. Police Control Room was reported about theft of vehicle upon which police advised that the vehicle be searched in vicinity. However, after numerous visit the police registered FIR No.156 dated 05.11.2015 under Section 379 IPC at Police Station, City Mujesar, Faridabad and after receiving the copy of FIR, complainant reported the theft to insurance company-OP on 07.11.2015. Police submitted the Untraced Report dated 22.06.2016 before Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Faridabad. Complainant also submitted the report about theft of vehicle to R.T.O Fridabad on 07.12.2015. It was alleged that, complainant submitted its claim with the OP-insurance company along with all the relevant documents, upon which insurance company made investigation, but the claim of complainant was rejected by the OP-insurance company vide letter dated 24.01.2016 on the ground that there was a delay of 14 days while intimating the theft of vehicle to insurance company as well as there was violation of condition No.1 of policy because there was a contradiction in statement, besides manipulation and concealment.

3.                It was further alleged that the rejection of claim by OP-insurance company amounts to deficiency in service because the complainant lodged his claim immediately after receiving the copy of FIR dated 05.11.2015. Another ground taken by the insurance company-OP i.e. contradictory statement as well as manipulation or concealment of facts in this regard it was submitted that there was no contradiction in statements. Regarding theft of vehicle FIR has been lodged, investigation has been made by the police and Untraced Report has been submitted. Further, it was alleged that rejection of claim after receiving copy of Untraced Report and court order of JMIC Faridabad, accepting the Untraced Report amounts to deficiency in service and prayed for issuance of directions to OP-Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- i.e. value of insured stolen vehicle along with interest @ 18% p.a.; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for damages for causing mental agony and harassment for numerous visits to the office, false assurance and pre-dated rejection letter; to pay Rs.44,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.                Upon notice, OPs appeared before this Commission and submitted their written version by taking preliminary objections, regarding the commercial use, locus-standi and abuse of the process of law etc. Apart from this, on merits, it was submitted that OPs received the intimation regarding theft of vehicle on 17.11.2015, whereas the vehicle in question was stolen on 24.10.2015. However, on receipt of intimation regarding theft of vehicle, OPs appointed M/s Eminent Solv Serve Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. as Surveyor to investigate the matter, who submitted its detailed report dated 01.06.2016. It was further submitted that during investigation, it was found that as per FIR, complainant stated that he along with the driver namely Asgar went to collect money from his friend Sanjay’s house at the time of incident of theft. Further, the complainant and driver had food at Sanjay’s house and when they returned to the spot of parking, the vehicle was found missing. However, during investigation, complainant gave in writing that he sent Asgar to collect money from his friend’s house Sanjay and when he (Asgar) came back from Sanjay’s house, he (Asgar) found that vehicle was missing from there and it was Asgar only who informed complainant about theft of vehicle in question. Thus, there was contradiction in statements of complainant. It was further submitted that theft took place on 24.10.2015, FIR was lodged on 05.11.2015 i.e. after 12 days delay and insurance company was informed regarding the theft on 07.11.2015 i.e. after 14 days delay. Hence, there was violation of condition No.1 of insurance policy and insurance company-OP rightly repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter date 24.01.2016. Moreover, during investigation it was found that as confirmed by RTA, vehicle in question was also insured with another policy from SBI GIC for the period 22.02.2015 to 21.02.2016 and thus, present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on part of OPs, and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit as Ex.CW-1/A vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainant learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Pankaj Dhingra, Legal Head of OPs as Ex.OPW-1/A and also tendered documents Ex.OP-1  to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

7.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Bhavuk Aggarwal, proxy counsel for Mr. Adarsh Jain, learned counsel for complainant as well as Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, learned counsel for OPs.  With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as the evidence led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

8.                As per the contentions raised by learned counsel for the complainant, vehicle bearing registration No.HR-38-S-4644 was purchased by Shri Jitender-complainant and same was insured with IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited-OPs vide insurance policy No.91272913 dated 20.02.2015 valid from 23.02.2015 to 22.02.2016. He further argued that the insurance cover valued for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and premium amount of Rs.21,007/- has also been paid by the complainant. Complainant employed a driver namely Asgar son of Khali, R/o Village Dhauj, Faridabad for plying the said vehicle and the said driver was holding driving license valid upto 20.08.2016. He further argued that on 24.10.2015 the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person. Police Control Room was reported about theft of vehicle upon which police advised that the vehicle be searched in vicinity. After numerous visit the police, registered FIR and after receiving a copy of FIR, complainant immediately reported the theft to insurance company-OP on 07.11.2015. Police submitted the Untraced Report dated 22.06.2016 before Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Faridabad. The report about theft of vehicle was also submitted to R.T.O Faridabad on 07.12.2015. He further argued that the claim was submitted with the OP-insurance company along with all the relevant documents, upon which insurance company made investigation, but the claim of complainant was rejected by the OP-insurance company vide letter dated 24.01.2016 on the ground that there was a delay of 14 days while intimating the theft of vehicle to insurance company as well as there was violation of condition No.1 of policy because there was a contradiction in statement besides manipulation and concealment. He further argued that police officials advised complainant that the vehicle be searched in vicinity and FIR was lodged after numerous visits to police and on receiving the copy of FIR, complainant immediately reported the theft to insurance company-OP on 07.11.2015. He further argued that there was no contradiction in statements. Regarding theft of vehicle FIR has been lodged, investigation has been made by the police and Untraced Report has been submitted. Further, it was argued that rejection of claim after receiving copy of Untraced Report and court order of JMIC Faridabad, accepting the Untraced Report amounts to deficiency in service.

9.           On the other hand, while unfolding the arguments, it has been argued by Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, learned counsel for OPs that admittedly the complainant is owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR-38-S-4644 and same was insured with IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited-OPs vide insurance policy No.91272913 dated 20.02.2015 valid from 23.02.2015 to 22.02.2016. He further argued that as per complainant himself, vehicle in question was stolen by some unknown person on 24.10.2015 and FIR No.156 dated 05.11.2015 was filed under Section 379 IPC at Police Station, City Mujesar, Faridabad i.e. after a delay of 12 days. Moreover, intimation regarding theft of vehicle was given to insurance company on 07.11.2015 that too after a delay 14 days without any cogent explanation. He further argued that on intimation of theft, OP-insurance company appointed M/s Eminent Solv Serve Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. as surveyor to investigate the matter, who submitted its report on 01.06.2016 and during investigation it was found that as per FIR, complainant stated that he along with the driver namely Asgar went to collect money from his friend Sanjay’s house at the time of incident of theft. Further, the complainant and driver had food at Sanjay’s house when they returned to the spot of parking, vehicle was found missing. However, during investigation, complainant gave in writing that he sent Asgar to collect money from his friend’s house Sanjay and when he (Asgar) came back from Sanjay’s house, he (Asgar) found that vehicle was missing from there and it was Asgar only who informed complainant about theft of vehicle in question. Thus, there was a contradiction in statements of complainant, which is violation of condition No.1 of insurance policy. Finally he argued that the claim of complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 24.01.2016 after keeping in view the terms and conditions of the policy and further prayed for dismissal of present complaint.

10.              It is an admitted fact that on 21.02.2013, complainant purchased a heavy commercial vehicle (Tipper) bearing registration No.HR-38-S-4644 through invoice No.H-2013-0117 (Ex.C-2). It is also an admitted fact that the said vehicle was insured with IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited-OPs vide insurance policy No.91272913 dated 20.02.2015 valid from 23.02.2015 to 22.02.2016 (Ex.C-5). It is also an admitted fact that vehicle in question was stolen by some unknown person on 24.10.2015 and FIR No.156 dated 05.11.2015 was registered under Section 379 IPC at Police Station, City Mujesar, Faridabad (Ex.C-7). Intimation regarding theft of vehicle given to insurance company on 07.11.2015 is also admitted. It is also admitted that claim of complainant was rejected by insurance company vide letter dated 24.01.2016.

11.              As per the basic averment raised in the complaint and the including the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get relief as he claimed alongwith the interest or not?

12.              From the perusal of record, it clearly reveals that vehicle in question was stolen by some unknown person on 24.10.2015 and FIR No.156 dated 05.11.2015 under Section 379 IPC at Police Station, City Mujesar, Faridabad i.e. after a delay of 12 days. It also reveals that intimation regarding theft of vehicle was given to insurance company on 07.11.2015 that too after a delay of 14 days without any cogent explanation and these facts are also admitted by complainant. Learned counsel for OPs has drawn our attention towards the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dharam Singh & Anr.” III (2006) CPJ 240 (NC), wherein it has been held that:-

“(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 15- Insurance- theft of insured vehicle-delay in lodging FIR and sending claim intimation to insurer- clear violation of policy condition requiring claim intimation to be sent immediately after accident/;loss/damage to insured property- Repudiation of Claim- theft of vehicle on 17.05.1991- FIR lodged on 15.07.1991- Intimation to insurer on 11.06.1993-Contention, several letters sent to insurer before said date, not accepted- Letters allegedly sent not bore acknowledgements of having been received by insurer- Copies thereof filed only to cover up delay in intimating insurer- Conduct of complainant in lodging FIR belatedly, unnatural, raises suspicion regarding manner in which truck lost- Claim rightly repudiated- No deficiency in service- Order of State Commission allowing complaint set aside.”

Reference made by learned counsel for OPs in Dharam Singh’s case (Supra) is rightly invoked in the facts of the present case. Moreover, there is also a contradiction in statements made by complainant, which is violation of condition No.1 of insurance policy. For ready reference, Condition No.1 of policy is reproduced as under:-

“Notice shall be given in written to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any kind of loss or damage and in event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall given all such information and assistance as the company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shll be given in writing to the company immediately, the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may given rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured  shall given immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.”

As per FIR No.156 dated 05.11.2015, complainant stated that he along with the driver namely Asgar went to collect money from his friend Sanjay’s house at the time of incident of theft. Further, the complainant and driver had food at Sanjay’s house when they came back to the spot of parking, vehicle was found missing. However, during investigation, complainant gave in writing that he sent Asgar to collect money from his friend’s house Sanjay and when he (Asgar) came back from Sanjay’s house, he (Asgar) found that vehicle was missing from there and it was Asgar only who informed complainant about theft of vehicle in question. Thus, there is clear contradiction and inconsistency in the statements made by complainant is violation of Condition No.1 of Insurance Policy.

13.              In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the insurance company rightly repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dated 24.01.2016. Hence, the present complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint is ordered to be dismissed.

14.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

15.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

16.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

 

Pronounced on 20^th November, 2024

 

                                                                        S.C Kaushik,            Naresh Katyal

Member                     Judicial Member

Addl. Bench             Addl. Bench