Haryana

StateCommission

A/298/2022

HEMANT KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

25 Oct 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.298 of 2022

                   Date of Institution:07.07.2022

Date of Decision:25.10.2024

 

Hemant Kumar, aged about 61 years S/o Sh.Ganpat SinghR/o H.No. 441, Ward No.16, BhiterliGali, Manan Panna, Bhiwani, Haryana.

 

..…Complainant-Appellant

Versus

 

 

1.      IffcoTokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office Iffco at Sadan C-1, Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Managing Director.

 

2.      The Regional Manager, IffcoTokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Plot No.2, 4^th Floor, Iffco complex, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

3.      Mr. Parshant S/o Ramesh Yadav, IffcoTokio, Agent No.1D No.15001295, Chhajju Ram Gali No.1, Meham Road, Vidya Nagar, Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani, Haryana at present Hira Ki Dhani Opp. Kishan Lal Jalan Hospital, Meham Gate, Bhiwani Tehsil & Distt. Bhiwani.

 

..…Opposite Parties-Respondents

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                   Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Shri  Ishan Bhardwaj, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant.

                   Shri Yogesh Gupta, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

None for respondent No.3.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Complainant-Appellant-Hemant Kumar, has filed the instant appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for challenging the order dated 16.07.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani whereby complaint filed by complainant-Hemant Kumarwas dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is owner of Tata Safari Dicorbearing registration No.HR-14C-9163, which was duly insured from opposite party No.1 for the period from 02.11.2015 to 01.11.2016 vide policy No.94798521 dated 02.11.2015.  The complainant paid the premium of Rs.15,007/- against the said policy to OP No.3, the agent of OP No.1 at Bhiwani.   The above said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person on 21.09.2016 at about 10.30 am to 01.30 pm when it was parked outside the court compound Bhiwani. The complainant  could not trace out his vehicle. FIR No.0217 dated 22.09.2016 was registered under section 379 IPC against the unknown person with police station Civil Lines, Bhiwani.  The complainant also gave intimation to OPs about stolen vehicle.   The complainant submitted all the documents to the OPs. The complainant lodged his claim, but, the OPs did not settle the claim of complainant. Faced with this situation, he got issued legal notice dated 04.12.2017 to the OPs, but, to of no avail. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.The complainant prayed for payment of the insurance claim as per terms and conditions of policy alongwith compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment and monetary loss.

3.      Notice being issued, OP Nos.1 and 2 filed joint written statement.  Preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint, for want of cause of action,  complaint is bad on account of mis joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.  Moreover, the insurance policy obtained by the complainant only covered the third party risk and premium has also been paid by the complainant/insured for covering the third party risk,as such own damage/theft claim sought by the complainant was not covered under the policy and present complaint deserves dismissal with costs.

          On merits,  it was specifically denied that complainant has paid a sum of Rs.15,007/- as premium of the insurance policy. Infact a sum of Rs.5792.34 ps. was paid by the complainant as a premium for covering the third party risk and as such the own damage/theft claim sought by the complainant was not covered under the policy obtained by the complainant. The insurance policy produced by the complainant was false and fabricated and same was not issued by the respondent company. The complainant neither intimated the answering OPs nor lodged any claim in respect of theft of vehicle in question alleged to have been stolen on 21.09.2016 and as such there was no question of submitting the documents by the complainant to the answering OPs. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      OP No.3 filed separate  reply.  Preliminary objections about  locus standi, estoppal, maintainability of complaint, for want of cause of action,  and concealment of true and material facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

On merits, it was submitted that complainant got insured his vehicle as third party insurance and had paid a sum of Rs.5792.34/- qua policy No.94798521 having validity from 02.11.2015 to 01.11.2016. The policy placed on the file by the complainant was false and forged one. The complainant never paid the premium of Rs.15,007/- against the said policy. The complainant only paid a sum of Rs.5792.34/- as third party premium to the answering OP and answering OP deposited the above said amount in the branch of IffcoTokio. The answering OP has denied all other allegations made in the complaint. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani, (In short “District Consumer Commission”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 16.07.2020.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. With their kind assistance the entire record of appeal and that of complaint alongwith Ex.C-1 to C-15A and Ex. R-1 to R-3 werethoroughly perused andexamined.

8.      Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle was stolen.  Further argued that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was entitled for the claim amount. The insurance company has notsettled the claim of the complainant.  The learned District Consumer Commission has wrongly dismissed the complaint. The complainant-appellant was entitled for the claim amount as prayed for.

9.      On the contrary, learned counsel for the OPs-respondents No.1 and 2 vehemently argued that the insurance policy obtained by the complainant only covered the third party risk and premium has also been paid by the complainant/insured for covering the third party risk,as such, own damage/theft claim sought by the complainant was not covered under the policy. The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

10.    It is not disputed that as per Annexure R-3, vehicle in question was insured with the OPs No.1 and 2 having validity from 02.11.2015 to 01.11.2016.  The plea of  complainant that he had purchased comprehensive policy by paying the premium of Rs.15007/-, is rejected because complainant has not placed on the file original insurance policy.  Rather, as per Annexure R-3 (original document) placed on the file by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 reveals that the complainant has paid only third party premium of Rs.5792.34 and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy,  the complainant is not entitled for the claim amount.  Thus, no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company to honour the claim of complainant. The photocopy of the insurance policy placed on the file by the complainant is forged and fabricated one and cannot be relied upon.The complainant has concealed the true and material facts.  Since, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was not entitled for the claim amount as prayed for. The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The State Consumer Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Consumer Commission. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

11.  

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

13.    File be consigned to record room.

 

25^thOctober, 2024   Manjula                     S.P.Sood                              T.P. S. Mann

                                    Member                     Judicial Member                 President

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)