DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.395/2017

Sanjiv Dagar,

R/o H. No. C-113, South City-1,

Gurgaon, Haryana - 122001

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ….Complainant

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Iffco Sadan, C-1, Distt. Centre, Saket,

New Delhi - 110017

        ….Opposite Party

       Date of Institution    :        17.11.2017

       Date of Order            :        01.02.2022

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Sh. U. K. Tyagi

Complainant is seeking direction for release of insurance claim to the tune of Rs.33,250/- and compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.

            Case of the Complainant is that he had a bike i.e. Splendor having registration number HR 26 BC – 0374 (hereinafter referred as “said motorbike”). The copy of registration certificate is exhibited Annexure A-1. He further adds that for covering the risk factor, the Complainant purchased one insurance policy from the Iffco Tokio (hereinafter referred as OP) bearing policy No.96202246 dated 27.01.2016 valid from 28.01.2016 to 27.01.2017 upon paying the premium of Rs.1220/- for the IDV Rs. 33,250/-. The said motorbike was stolen on 16.08.2016 from Gurgaon, accordingly an F.I.R. was lodged on 17.08.2016 with Police Station DLF, Gurgaon. The OP was also informed accordingly. The OP vide its letter dated 02.11.2016 requested the Complainant to submit the following documents:

1. second original key of the stolen vehicle
2. Original Final Report U/s 173 Cr.P.C.(duly signed by judicial Court Magistrate).

The copy of the said letter is exhibited at Annexure A-4.

The Complainant obtained the untraceable report and the same is exhibited as Annexure A-8. The complainant vide its mail dated 27.10.2017 sought the status of the case and respondent accordingly replied vide mail dated 31.10.2017. Copy of the mail is marked and exhibited at Annexure A-9.

On the other hand, OP Company filed its written statement and accepted the fact that the Complainant had obtained policy as mentioned above for the period 28.01.2016 to 27.01.2017. It was also exhorted that the claim of the Complainant contrary to his submission, was promptly processed. Sh. Mohindra Kumar Mittal who was appointed an investigator in the matter, also submitted his report on 23.09.2016. True copy of the said report is exhibited at Annexure R-1. On the receipt of complaint, both the requisite documents as indicated below were called for by the Insurance Company vide its letter dated 02.11.2016. 

1. Second original key of the stolen/insured vehicle.
2. Original final report under section 173 Cr.P.C.

True copies of the letter are exhibited Annexure R-2, R-3, & R-4.

Since the Complainant did not respond to the above mentioned letters to process further, the claim-case was finally closed vide letter dated 13.12.2017.

Both the parties have filed evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments before this commission. The same are placed on record.

This Commission has examined the documents placed on record and found that all the requisite documents except final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. and second key of the stolen vehicle were submitted to the office of the OP at the earliest opportunity. Whereas the Complainant has contended that final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted to the company on 18.05.2013 and exhibited as Annexure-7 which is a receipt of Indian Post reflecting that envelope sent to Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited from Sanjiv Dagar.

This Commission has also examined the investigation report as submitted by Mohindra Kumar Mittal theft recovery agent who concluded that “as per our investigation and documents submitted by the insured, the concerned theft claim is genuine and is covered under the policy. So insurer may decide the concerned theft claim by keeping the above points in view”. He further stated this fact vide his summary of the case that “there is no malafide intention on the part of the insured in preferring claim from the insurers and the above vehicle was in physical possession of Sh. Ankur Gupta as authorised by Sh. Sanjiv Dagar immediately before the theft incidence. Also, no breach of any term, exception, limitation, endorsement and condition of the policy has come to his knowledge”.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission agreeing with the reports of Sh. Mohindra Kumar Mittal, who was appointed to investigate this matter, is of the considered view that the claim of the complainant is genuine and accordingly his complaint is allowed.

OP is directed to process the case for allowing the insurance claim as per policy within three months along with interest @ 6% p.a. on the insured amount from the date of institution of the case in this Commission and is further granted Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony and Rs.2000/- for litigation charges failing which an interest @ 9% shall be charged till realisation of the above mentioned amount i.e. policy claim, compensation for mental harassment and litigation charges.

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties.