Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 545.
Instituted on : 05.11.2018.
Decided on : 17.02.2021.
Amit Kumar age 27 years son of Sh. Suresh Kumar R/o Village Nigana Tehsil Kalanaur District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Minerva Complex, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt. Through its Manager.
- IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajendra Kinha Tower, IInd Floor, Nr. Bajrang Bhawan, Main Delhi Road, Jhang Colony Rohtak, (Through its Branch Manager/Area Manager).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.K.Behl, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle no.HR-12Z-6058 and he got the same insured from the opposite party for the period from 23.12.2017 to 22.12.2018(wrongly mentioned as 23.01.2018 to 22.12.2018 in the complaint) vide policy no.ITG/82429485. As per the policy, in case of complete damage to the vehicle, the claim payable is on invoice price or current ex-showroom price+ 8% R.C. Tax. On 14.04.2018 the brother of the complainant namely Yogesh had taken the vehicle to Sonepat and the said vehicle met with an accident and was completely damaged. The complainant informed the opposite party about the accident and lodged his complaint and also completed the required formalities but till today the claim has not been paid by the opposite parties. The opposite party issued a letter dated 30.07.2018 to the complainant vide which the claim of the complainant has been closed as no claim on the ground that vehicle met with accident on 14.04.2018 and claim was reported to ITGI on 18.04.2018. The alleged plea taken by the opposite party is false as the complainant immediately informed the opposite party about the accident. Opposite party also sent a letter dated 03.08.2018 to the complainant mentioning that the complainant has not supplied the required documents whereas all the required documents were supplied by the complainant to the opposite party within time. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.1260360/- alongwith interest @ of 18% p.a. from the date of payment of accident till its realization and also to pay an amount of Rs.100,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.22,000/- towards legal costs to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that on receipt of belated intimation of loss, the respondent insurance company on its part deputed M.S.Uppal & Associates, surveyor and Loss Assessor for inspection and survey of the vehicle and the matter was further entrusted to M/s Karnal & Associates for detail investigation. During the course of investigation, it was found that: The damages sustained to the vehicle are not congruent with the spot shown and circumstances of loss as mentioned by the insured in the claim form, which raise doubts about the exact location of the accident. Moreover, during the joint meeting between the complainant and appointed investigator, the petrol pump staff near spot of accident have denied of any such incident in past few months. There is contradiction of date and place of accident. The insured has manipulated the actual facts of the case and trying to take undue advantage through insurance claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 14.06.2019. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8 and affidavit Ex.RW3/A in additional evidence and has closed his evidence on dated 03.12.2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that the damages sustained to the vehicle are not congruent with the spot shown and circumstances of loss as mentioned by the insured in the claim form, which raise doubts about the exact location of the accident and the petrol pump staff near spot of accident have denied of any such incident in past few months but to prove the same, no such statement of the petrol pump employees has been placed on record. Moreover no willful damages has been proved by the opposite parties. The policy was issued on 23.12.2017 and the same has been transferred in the name of complainant vide endorsement dated 07.02.2018 and as per the main policy add on cover also added in the comprehensive policy i.e. depreciation waiver, Engine and Gear Box Protection cover, Return to invoice value engine and cover box broken cover, written to invoice value as shown at page no.2 of the policy Ex.C2 and at page no.4 of the policy, as per condition no.12 of Product differentiator under the head Add on Cover Return to Invoice Value(RTIV), Payable on Invoice price or current Ex. Showroom Price (whichever is lower)+Registration and Road Tax Charges. As per surveyor report Ex.R7, he has assessed the wreck value Rs.450000/- without any basis which is on higher side. The IDV of the vehicle as per policy is Rs.829850/-. As per copy of invoice of repair bill Ex.C3, the total liability is Rs.971525/- which is more than the IDV of the vehicle. Hence the complainant is entitled for invoice value of vehicle.
At the time of arguments a copy of Invoice of vehicle make City1.5 VX MT(I-DTEC), dated 12.08.2015 has been placed on record today as Annexure-JN-A, as per which the value of vehicle is Rs.1031602/- and the road tax comes to 8% of the price of vehicle i.e Rs.80000/-. Hence as per terms and conditions of the policy Ex.C2, complainant is entitled for Rs.1031602/- + Rs.80000/- i.e. Rs.1111602/-. Annexure JN-C, is the Loan Closure Document issued by the financer HDFC Bank Ltd., as per which the complainant has repaid the loan amount.
7. Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed and opposite parties are hereby directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.1111602/-(Rupees eleven lac eleven thousand six hundred and two only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.05.11.2018 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to intimate the registration authority that the vehicle has been total damage and registration of the same may be cancelled and copy of this intimation letter, be handed over to the insurance company. On the other hand, opposite parties/insurance company is directed to collect the damaged vehicle/salvage itself from the complainant at the time of making payment of claim amount to the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
17.02.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
……………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member.
