Haryana

StateCommission

A/923/2015

VINOD KUMAR NAGAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

MUNISH BEHL

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 923 of 2015

Date of Institution: 21.10.2015

Date of Decision : 18.07.2016

 

 

 

Vinod Kumar Nagar son of Sh. Dharam Singh Nagar, resident of Village and Post Office Tigoan, Mohalla Bhakla Patti, Near Sadapur Mor, Tigaon, District Faridabad.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

1. M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company, Registered Office, IFFCO Sadan, C1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.
2. M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, FAI Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Kutub Institutional Area, New Delhi.
3. The Manager, M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, SC 2, 1^st Floor, Special HUDA Market, Sector 19, Mathura Road, Near Badkhal Chowk, Faridabad.
4. M/s ICICI Bank Limited, Videocon Tower, 2^nd Floor Towers, Block E-1, Jhandewalan Extension Complex, New Delhi -110056, ICICI Bank Limited, HUDA Market, Sector 16, Faridabad.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Munish Behl, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Rajnish Malhotra, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3

                             Shri Puneet Tuli, Advocate for the respondent No.4

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Vinod Kumar Nagar-complainant was the owner of truck bearing registration No.UP84C-9721. The truck was insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company-opposite parties No.1 to 3 (for short ‘the Insurance Company’), for the period January 03^rd, 2009 to January 02^nd, 2010. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the truck was Rs.10,50,000/-.  The truck was financed from ICICI Bank Limited-opposite party No.4. 

2.      On January 25^th, 2009, the truck was snatched by some unknown persons. The complainant informed the Police. F.I.R. No.90 dated January 27^th, 2009 was registered in Police Station Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it was not settled. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’).

3.      The Insurance Company in its reply pleaded that the complainant did not cooperate with the surveyors and left the ignition key in the vehicle.   

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order dated September 22^nd, 2015 dismissed the complaint

5.      Aggrieved of the impugned order, complainant has filed this appeal.

6.      The only defence taken by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the driver left the ignition key in the truck.  The driver was waylaid by some anti social elements and snatched the vehicle from him. Leaving the key in the ignition was not a voluntary act on the part of the driver rather it was on account of mischievous act and compelled circumstances, which forced the driver to alight from the vehicle. This lapse on the part of the driver cannot be treated as willful breach of condition no.5 on the part of the driver. Retention of a key in the vehicle ought not to be at all times taken as constituting so serious breach as to disentitle the insured to make the claim under the policy. It all depends on facts of the case. In view of this, the defence taken by the Insurance Company is not convincing and is hereby repelled. 

7.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted; the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is allowed.  It is made clear that since the truck was financed from ICICI Bank Limited-opposite party No.4, it shall have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by the complainant.  Learned counsel for the ICICI Bank has stated that till date Rs.24,53,385/- is outstanding against the complainant.  Thus, the Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Fifty Thousand Only), that is, IDV of the truck, to the ICICI Bank Limited-opposite party No.4, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till the date of realization. The entire amount be paid by the Insurance Company within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum, till realization.              

 

Announced 18.07.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

UK