Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/277

Gurtej Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gurmeet Singh Saini

30 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

C. C. No. :                      277 of 2019

Date of Institution:            21.11.2019

Date of Decision :             30.09.2024

Gurtej Singh aged about 55 years, son of Hakam Singh r/o Village Ittan Wali, District Ferozepur.                                                .......Complainant

                                                 Versus

 

1. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company, Head office at Sohan Singh Complex, Shashtri Market, Ludhiana through its G.M./Authorized Signatory.
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company, Branch at Village Malwal, District Ferozepur, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.                                        .......OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum: Sh. Rakesh Kumar Singla, President,

               Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member,

 

Present: Sh Gurmit Saini, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Satish Kumar Jain, Ld Counsel for OP-1 & 2,

* * * * * *

ORDER

(Rakesh Kumar Singla, President)     

  

                            Complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim of Rs.03,90,221/-on account of damage of his insured car and for further

cc-277 of 2019

directing them to payRs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2                                            Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant got insured his car bearing registration no. PB-05AD-4508 from OP-1 through OP-2 against insurance policy bearing no. TSB/30090824 valid for the period from 30.12.2017 to 29.12.2018 and paid premium of Rs.24,588/-. It is submitted that on 22.03.2018, car of complainant met with an accident with a fast running zypsy being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner. In  said accident, his car was badly damaged. Complainant informed Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura but Police in connivance with driver and owner of said zypsy lodged a false and baseless FIR bearing no.0028 dated 24.03.2018 under section 279/337/427 IPC against complainant on twisted fact holding the complainant guilty for said accident. Complainant also duly informed OPs in this regard and got repaired his car from Radiant Toyota, Ferozepur and paid Rs.3,90,221/-to them for repair work from his own pocket. After getting his car repaired, complainant informed OPs and after completing all requisite formalities, requested OPs to make payment of insurance claim, but they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and finally refused to pay charges for damages against policy in question. Complainant made several requests to OPs to consider his claim, but they paid no heed to genuine requests of complainant and did not do anything needful to redress the grievance of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. He has

cc-277 of 2019

prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                            The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.11.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                OP-1 and OP-2 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has concealed the material fact that at the time of said accident, he was under the influence of alcohol and this fact is proved from the perusal of FIR No.0026 dated 24.03.2018 and as per Insurance Policy condition section – 1 (c), the Company shall not be liable to make any payment in receipt of any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxication liquor or drugs. Moreover, accident occurred on 22.03.2018, but complainant informed answering OPs on 19.04.2018 after a considerable delay of 26 days, which is a violation of mandatory condition of present Insurance Policy. Further averred that on receipt of belated intimation of loss, answering OPs appointed a Surveyor Jasjeet Singh Purba, who after inspecting the vehicle submitted report dated 27.06.2018 wherein opined that driver of the insured car was under the influence of wine at time of said accident. As per FIR, driver was in drunken condition and could not control the car.

cc-277 of 2019

Even at per Claim Petition under Section 166 filed by Jagdeep Singh bearing no.15 of 31.03.2018 decided on 13.05.2019  by Sh Harbans Singh Lekhi, MACT Faridkot, driver of car i.e complainant was in drunkard condition and people present at the spot caught the driver of car in drunkard position and this fact was duly informed to Police by the claimant/Jagdeep Singh. It is also brought before the Commission that before repudiation of claim, answering OPs wrote letters dated 19.09.2019, 12.10.2019 and 21.10.2019 to give reason for delay in intimation to Insurance Company and also asked him to provide documents  like MLC of driver, Superdari documents and Towing receipt, but complainant did not bother to reply these letters, rather to put pressure on answering OPs, he preferred to file the present complaint. On merits also, OPs have denied all the allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that at the time of said accident, complainant not in his senses and was under the influence of liquor, he was driving the car rashly in a negligent manner without following the driving rules and accident occurred due to own negligence. It is asserted that they have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant as per rules. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                       Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence

 

cc-277 of 2019

 affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, documents Ex C-2 to C-8 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sameer Gupta as Ex OP-1, 2/A, affidavit of Kashmir Singh Ex OP-1, document Ex OP-1, 2/2  to Ex OP-1,2/8 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                              We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as Opposite parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                                                From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by respective parties, it is observed that grievance of complainant is that his insured car met with an accident during the subsistence of insurance policy. Complainant duly intimated Police as well as OPs and got repaired his vehicle by paying huge amount of Rs.3,90,221 to Radiant Toyota, Ferozepur. After completing all formalities, complainant requested Ops to approve his genuine insurance claim, but OPs repudiated the same on false grounds, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to C-8. On the other hand, ld counsel for OPs have stressed mainly on the point that they have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant as per

cc-277 of 2019

terms and conditions of the policy in question because at the time of said accident, complainant was under the influence of liquor.

 9                                                    There is no denial by OPs that vehicle of complainant was insured with them under policy in question. Occurrence of accident is also admitted. Repudiation made by OPs for passing the insurance claim of complainant seems to be justifiable in the light of document Ex OP-2 copy of FIR wherein it is clearly mentioned that driver of the car involved in accident was under the influence of liquor. Further charge sheet Ex OP-3 reveals the fact that complainant was booked under Section 279 IPC for driving the car rashly in a negligent manner and he committed offense under Section 337 of IPC by hurting the Jagdeep Singh and Paramjeet Singh and as per Section 338 of IPC he caused grievous hurt on the person of Navdeep Kaur. Statement of Jagdeep Singh before Ld Chief Judicial Magistrate Sh Kapil Dev Singla also reveals the fact that Gurtej Singh was driving the car rashly at high speed and was in drunkard condition. Moreover in Investigation Report Ex OP-5, complainant has himself admitted that he was driving the vehicle at the speed of 120-130 km per hour and while driving he could not control his car and hit the zypsy to its back side.

10                                            In the light of above discussion and from the documents placed on record, it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs in repudiating the claim of complainant.

cc-277 of 2019

Documents Ex OP-2 copy of FIR, OP-3 Charge Sheet alongwith statements of witnesses, OP-5 Investigation Report, clearly reveal the fact that at the time of said accident, complainant was under the influence of liquor and he was driving the car rashly in a negligent manner at the speed of 120-30 km/per hour. Therefore, this Commission is of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, complaint filed by complainant stands hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.

11                                      However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs.

12                                         Complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

13                                            Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission :

Dated: 30.09.2024

   (Param Pal Kaur)        (Rakesh Kumar Singla)               

     Member                      President