DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No. 68/2011
Shri Padam Panwar
S/o Shri Chhote Lal,
141-B, Shahpur Lal,
New Delhi-110016. ….Complainant
Versus
Iffco-Tockio General Insurance Company Ltd.
FAI-House, 2nd Floor,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutab Institutional Area,
New Delhi-110067.
Also at
Regd. Office
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Iffco Sadan C-1, Distt. Centre
Saket, New Delhi-110017
Office Incharge
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Iffco Sadan C-1, Distt. Centre
Saket, New Delhi-110017
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 22.10.2011 Date of Order : 17.12.2018
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Member - Kiran Kaushal
Facts stated in the complaint in nut-shell are :
- Complainant, Shri Padam Panwar took an insurance policy from IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as OP, pertaining to his Honda City car, registration number of the said vehicle is DL-3C AY 3787 for the period from 09.04.2010 to 08.04.2011.
- Complainant’s friend Shri Balbir Singh parked the above said car near Shop No. 3 Gurudwara Garhi East of Kailash New Delhi on 06.06.2010. All the papers pertaining to the aforesaid car viz registration certificate, pollution certificate, insurance etc. were lying in the dashboard of the car. Complainant’s friend went to Chandigarh for some work and when he returned back on 14.06.2010, he was shocked to see the car missing from the place where he had parked. He searched for the car all around but all in vain. The car as per the complainant’s friend was locked well and was probably stolen. The complainant’s friend immediately informed the police on 14.06.2010 and an FIR was registered. Complainant’s friend also provided the information to the toll free number of the OP on 16.06.2010.
- OP appointed an investigator who carried out necessary inspections, documents and inquires from the complainant’s friend. Complainant’s documents were inspected and the requisite papers asked by the investigator were provided by the complainant on 17.07.2010 which are annexed as Annexure-E1. It is further stated by the complainant that untraced report dated 19.08.2010 is filed by the complainant and annexed as Annexure-F. On pursuing the claim from OP, the complainant received a letter on 21.09.2010 stating “that the captioned claim is not tenable under the policy and we are filing the papers as no claim.
- The complainant being aggrieved, on receiving the repudiation letter of his valid claim approached the Forum with the prayer to award or pass a decree in favour of the complainant and direct OP to pay a sum of Rs.8,07,000/-, to award interest @ 2% per month from the date of order till actual realization together with costs and any other relief as may be deemed fit.
2. OP controverted the averments made in the complaint by filing its written statement wherein inter-alia OP states that while submitting the Proposal Form the complainant also filed copy of previous cover note bearing No. 0227719 purported to have been issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for the period 09.04.2009 to 08.04.2010. OP states that based on the previous cover note as supplied by the complainant, the policy in question was issued to the complainant.
2.1 It is next stated by OP that claim for theft of the car was lodged by the complainant which took place between 06.06.2010 and 14.06.2010. The claim was duly investigated by OP and during investigation; it was revealed that the copy of previous cover note bearing No. 0227719 as provided by the complainant was infact fake and fabricated. The OP wrote a letter dated 10.09.2010 to New India Assurance Co. Ltd. regarding confirmation of the cover note. It was informed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. that as per their record the cover note was in fact issued on 28.10.2002 for one vehicle No. DL8SK4197 (LML Vespa, Scooter) for the period 28.10.2002 to 27.10.2003 in favour of one Mr. Rajesh Nagpal. OP has annexed a true copy of said letter as Annexure A-1. It was in these circumstances that the complainant had violated the condition No. 8 of the policy which is provided as under:-
“the due observance and fulfillment of terms and conditions and…………….. of this policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements ……. Shall be condition precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under this policy”.
Therefore, OP claims that the repudiation of the claim by OP is legal, valid and in accordance with term and conditions of the insurance policy based on investigation. Therefore claim being false and frivolous, the complaint be dismissed with cost.
3. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the complainant wherein all the averments in the complaint are reiterated in the rejoinder as well as in evidence.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Rajeev Choudhary, Vice President with M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. has been filed on behalf of OP.
5. Written arguments have been filed by the parties.
6. We have heard arguments on behalf of the parties and gone through the material placed on record.
7. Admittedly, vehicle of complainant was stolen from shop no.3 Gurudwara Garhi East of Kailash New Delhi. The said vehicle was insured by OP for the period of 09.04.2010 to 08.04.2011 and complainant had paid Rs.16,230/- as the premium amount. The vehicle in question was parked by complainant’s friend near his shop and after few days complainant’s friend visited Chandigarh for some personal work when he returned back on 14.06.2010 the car was missing from the place where he had parked. Complainant’s friend searched for the car all around and later got an FIR registered for the stolen car. Complainant’s friend on 16.06.2010 reported to OP regarding the missing car.
8. OP appointed an investigator who carried out necessary inspections and procured documents from complainant’s friend. Later after few days the complainant received a letter dated 21.09.2010 stating that the complainant’s claim was not tenable under the policy and OP was filing the papers as ‘No Claim’.
9. The dispute between the parties arose when the complainant received the repudiation letter from OP of his valid claim. The reason stated for repudiation of the claim was that while submitting the Proposal Form the complainant also filed copy of the previous cover note which was issued by New India Insurance Company Limited for the period 09.04.2010 to 08.04.2011. OP averred that the policy in question issued to the complainant was based on the previous cover note. When the claim for theft of the car was lodged by the complainant OP got the claim investigated and during investigation it was revealed that the copy of previous cover note bearing no 0227719 as provided by the complainant was in fact fake and fabricated. The OP wrote a letter dated 10/09/2010 to New India Assurance Company limited regarding the confirmation of cover note. It was informed that as per the record of New India Assurance Company the cover note was in fact issued on 28/10/2002 for one vehicle no.DLSK84197(LML vespa scooter for the period of 28/10/2002 to 27/10/2003 in the favour on one Mr.Rajesh Nagpal. It was in these circumstances that the complainant violated the condition number 8 of the policy which is provided as under:-
“the due observance and fulfillment of terms and conditions and…………….. of this policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements ……. Shall be condition precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under this policy”.
10. On careful scrutiny of the said document placed on record. It is observed that the OP had sent a letter to New India Assurance Company for confirmation of cover note number 0227719 and the reply given by new India insurance company limited was regarding the cover note number 227719. There seems to be some kind of typographical or human error regarding the cover note numbers. Even, if for the sake of arguments we believe the same to be true we do not understand its relevance as to why was a new insurance cover note issued and premium taken from the complainant. It is matter of common knowledge that an Insurance Company gives a cover note only after through enquiries and investigation.
11. Further it is pertinent to note that the cover note investigation was made at the time of raising of claim by the complainant whereas it is submitted by OP that the copy of the previous cover note for the period of 9/4/2009 to 8/4/2010 was given to the OP by the complainant, while submitting the proposal form. The question arises if the cover note was provided initially while submitting the proposal form why this fact was not investigated at that point of time. Therefore this Forum is of the opinion that OP is estopped from raising the question of previous cover note at this stage.
12. OP apprised the Forum regarding the recovery of the said vehicle by filing an application dated 06.05.2013. It is stated that the vehicle in question had been recovered and was lying in the custody of Police Station, Amar Colony, where the FIR was lodged. The complainant had refused to accept the vehicle. Complainant in the reply to the application states that the said vehicle has now been recovered after 3 years and many important engine parts of the vehicle are missing. The vehicle is not road worthy. It cannot ply on the road. Therefore, he refused to accept the scrap of the vehicle.
13. Needless to mention that an FIR for the stolen vehicle was lodged and untraced report has been annexed as Annexure-F by the complainant. Repudiation of claim is prior to recovery of vehicle therefore subsequent act cannot have any bearing on the complaint case. For the reasons stated above this Forum is of the opinion that OP is deficient in service for denying the valid claim of he complainant and asking the complainant to collect the salvage now would lead to unfair trade practice.
14. Hence the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to pay IDV of the stolen vehicle that is Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim till realization within a period of two month from the date of this order.
Failing which OP shall become liable to pay Rs.5,00,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim till realization. Additionally OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and damages suffered by the complainant.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 17.12.18
